Cancer Free Economy’s Post

🚨#SCOTUS Ruling Strikes Down 40 Years of Regulatory Predictability Small Businesses Rely On 🚨 Read ASBN’s Statement: https://bit.ly/3zrtelS Friday’s Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron doctrine is a significant setback for American small businesses, comprising 99.9% of all American businesses. This ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo disrupts the regulatory predictability that businesses depend on for stability. 💼From Main Street to Wall Street, small businesses across America rely on federal regulations to plan and prepare for the future. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine will introduce confusion and compliance challenges that could impact businesses for years to come. 📉The American Sustainable Business Network, representing thousands of small and mid-size businesses, stood united with other small business organizations in warning of the far-reaching consequences for local economies and business operations. This was made clear in an amicus brief filed with Democracy Forward on September 23, 2023. Read the amicus brief: https://bit.ly/3xDKCmX ASBN will continue to advocate on behalf of its members through the notice and comment process and explore legislative action to restore Chevron deference. #SmallBusiness #RegulatoryPredictability #SupremeCourt #ChevronDoctrine #ComplianceChallenges #Chevron #DemocracyForward

Last week, Nasdaq published an article I wrote on the Chevron deference, whereby US federal courts historically deferred to administrative agencies on how to implement and interpret laws enacted by Congress. Given the increasing pace of technological innovation and economic evolution, this deference prioritized the subject-matter expertise of administrative agencies’ staff in changing regulatory contexts. In recent years, amid ongoing polarization in the United States, these agencies have become a central forum for disputes between political coalitions; not only do regulatory policies dramatically swing between administrations, but legal challenges to new administrative rules have dramatically increased. These changes in effect relegate administrative decisions from regulatory agencies to federal courts. I argue that a reinvigorated Chevron deference better preserves a balance of congressional oversight and technical precision. You can read the full article here:   https://lnkd.in/e4uxq5YH

I first learned that there is a concept in the US called the Chevron doctrine. It says that the government has the authority to interpret what is ambiguous in the law. To us Japanese, that is a matter of course, without the need for a court's decision. The TSE's request to improve P/B ratios, which has become a hot topic in the stock market, is a typical example. It is not at all clear that the TSE has the authority to do so. However, listed companies, which until now have not listened to shareholder suggestions, have suddenly begun share buybacks and other forms of shareholder returns simply because they are told to do so by a public agency. For better or worse, this is Japan. https://lnkd.in/dy83gvyi #Chevrondoctrin #TSE

🇺🇸 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 | 𝗨𝗦 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 '𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲' 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 | 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 The US Supreme Court's conservative majority, in one of its most significant rulings in years, has thrown out a landmark, 40-year-old precedent under which courts have offered federal agencies significant leeway in deciding how to regulate the energy sector and other industries. In a 6-3 ruling that marks a major blow to President Joe Biden's administration, the court's conservatives overturned its 1984 ruling Chevron v. NRDC that for decades has served as a cornerstone for how judges should review the legality of federal regulations when a statute is not clear. But chief justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said experience has shown the precedent is "unworkable" and became an "impediment, rather than an aid" for courts to analyze what a specific law requires. By Chris Knight: https://okt.to/umVync #ArgusMedia #SupremeCourt #EnergySector #BidenAdministration

The Loper Bright Enterprises ruling from the US Supreme Court signals a significant change in how courts review agency rulemaking and statutory interpretation. How will this ruling impact the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule? RK attorneys Charlie Mitchell and Hannah Klonowski offer insights in this article published by HR.com:

The Loper Bright Enterprises ruling from the US Supreme Court signals a significant change in how courts review agency rulemaking and statutory interpretation. How will this ruling impact the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule? RK attorneys Charlie Mitchell and Hannah Klonowski offer insights in this article published by HR.com:

The Loper Bright Enterprises ruling from the US Supreme Court signals a significant change in how courts review agency rulemaking and statutory interpretation. How will this ruling impact the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule? RK attorneys Charlie Mitchell and Hannah Klonowski offer insights in this article published by HR.com:

The Loper Bright Enterprises ruling from the US Supreme Court signals a significant change in how courts review agency rulemaking and statutory interpretation. How will this ruling impact the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule? RK attorneys Charlie Mitchell and Hannah Klonowski offer insights in this article published by HR.com:

The Loper Bright Enterprises ruling from the US Supreme Court signals a significant change in how courts review agency rulemaking and statutory interpretation. How will this ruling impact the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete Clause Rule? RK attorneys Charlie Mitchell and Hannah Klonowski offer insights in this article published by HR.com:

Recent conservative rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) are having dire consequences for businesses, investors, and markets. The 2022 decision in *West Virginia v. EPA* restricted the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions, a move that embraced the "major question" theory. This theory asserts that federal agencies cannot make economically significant regulations without clear congressional authorization. By doing so, SCOTUS shifted power from expert agencies to courts, increasing the likelihood of legal challenges to future regulations. Additionally, SCOTUS has effectively dismantled the Chevron Doctrine, which had allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous laws with deference from courts. By repealing Chevron, the conservative majority has handed immense power to nearly 900 federal judges, who are now empowered to make rulings on regulatory issues they may not fully understand. This new paradigm stifles innovation and prolongs uncertainty, as litigants need only find one sympathetic judge to block new regulations, leading to costly and prolonged legal battles. For businesses, this shift introduces significant risks. Regulatory uncertainty harms investment decisions, particularly for venture capitalists who fund future technologies and business models. The longer timeframes for resolving regulatory questions and the greater potential for litigation diminish investor confidence. Startups, in particular, face greater hurdles, as incumbents can use the judicial veto to block new rules that would foster competition. Ultimately, the judicial veto doctrine increases unpredictability and discourages new investment. It creates a regulatory environment where incumbents can weaponize the courts to protect their interests, while innovative startups and early-stage investors face higher risks and lower returns. Instead of fostering a business-friendly climate, these rulings favor established players, suppress innovation, and inject dangerous levels of uncertainty into the market. https://lnkd.in/d9ckpKsn