No, it isn't because we've had 40 years of Congress writing laws assuming Chevron deference. If you're a programmer of any kind, think of it like one of our constraints or preconditions that you've built your entire software stack on suddenly changes or is removed.
Imagine your server was built assuming all packets would arrive in order because the networking layer beneath you guaranteed that. Now it doesn't.
> because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases
So the only court with discretion as to whether they want to hear a case or not is the Supreme Court. Every other court must hear a case brought to them, even if it's just to dismiss it, which they need to issue a ruling for.
> A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case
With Chevron, the courts would simply say "by Supreme Court precedent, we have to defer to Federal agencies on any ambiguous legislative language". That's quite literally what "deference" means.
Now they don't.
So a district court has the authority to rule on matters they previously didn't and we've seen courts do just that for things the judge simply doesn't like.
Worse, there's not even a statute of limitations on challenging Federal regulations anymore, thanks to Corner Post [1]. Previously there was a 6 year period from instituting a rule to challenge it. Now it's 6 years from when the injury began, which means you can challenge a century old rule by simply starting an LLC, knowing that the rule exists, and then saying you've suffered injury. That's not an exaggeration.
You also do that in a favorable jurisdiction to get a favorable judge to block the ruling. This is what happens in Texas. Previously most of the rulings friendly to patent holders came out of one court with one judge from the Eastern District of Texas. Now a lot of issues are coming from one judge in the Northern District of Texas.
Both of these courts are in the Fifth Circuit, which itself tends to be friendly to such causes.
No, it isn't because we've had 40 years of Congress writing laws assuming Chevron deference. If you're a programmer of any kind, think of it like one of our constraints or preconditions that you've built your entire software stack on suddenly changes or is removed.
Imagine your server was built assuming all packets would arrive in order because the networking layer beneath you guaranteed that. Now it doesn't.
> because the higher courts are going to start to refuse to hear cases
So the only court with discretion as to whether they want to hear a case or not is the Supreme Court. Every other court must hear a case brought to them, even if it's just to dismiss it, which they need to issue a ruling for.
> A prison telco can bring any suit they like, but it's not like the removal of the Chevron defense requires the court to accept the case
With Chevron, the courts would simply say "by Supreme Court precedent, we have to defer to Federal agencies on any ambiguous legislative language". That's quite literally what "deference" means.
Now they don't.
So a district court has the authority to rule on matters they previously didn't and we've seen courts do just that for things the judge simply doesn't like.
Worse, there's not even a statute of limitations on challenging Federal regulations anymore, thanks to Corner Post [1]. Previously there was a 6 year period from instituting a rule to challenge it. Now it's 6 years from when the injury began, which means you can challenge a century old rule by simply starting an LLC, knowing that the rule exists, and then saying you've suffered injury. That's not an exaggeration.
You also do that in a favorable jurisdiction to get a favorable judge to block the ruling. This is what happens in Texas. Previously most of the rulings friendly to patent holders came out of one court with one judge from the Eastern District of Texas. Now a lot of issues are coming from one judge in the Northern District of Texas.
Both of these courts are in the Fifth Circuit, which itself tends to be friendly to such causes.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_Post,_Inc._v._Board_of_...