Well, that's pretty difficult to square with Seven County Infrastructure (the case you referenced)--it said Loper Bright still applies to NEPA, it's just that NEPA is pretty much entirely law application and therefore the standard will almost always be deference DESPITE Loper Bright.

So you do not take the Loper Bright opinion at its word when it says that every statute has a single, best meaning that must be independently determined by judges? It depends on whether a) there is precedent of deference in a particular statute, or b) the Court recently tells us otherwise?

Passive voice... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What's concerning is the idea that a symposium--usually reserved for serious contributions--is being used for a bad law review article. I don't think practioner perspectives should be excluded, but neither should this forum be an opp for people like Schmitt to post screeds and call it a symposium.

Good grief.

Oh good, I'm glad they'll have some legitimate takes as part of this. I truly worried this was just going to be the administrative law scholarship equivalent of astroturfing.

I know some will say this is just the reality of the world. Nothing matters anymore. Law is for suckers, etc. But this is nuts--it's DOGE getting an academic whitewash.

Third, I'll delighted if I'm proven wrong, but based on the general vibe of this symposium so far, I'll be shocked if there's any acknowledgment at all of the implications of Loper Bright for requiring additional regulation where that's the best reading of statutes.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Second, the posts so far are advancing arguments that don't pass the laugh test. Apparently, State Farm has never actually required that regulatory rescissions undergo arbitrary and capricious review. That was just a figment of our imaginations!

www.yalejreg.com/nc/state-far...

First, the inspiration for this symposium appears to be a single Senator's passion project dressed up as a majestic sounding "Post-Chevron Working Group Report." Not a book or an influential article or a case, but a glorified op-ed.

journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-cont...

He actually says State Farm didn't even hold that rescissions are subject to arbitrariness review, which is insane. No fair reading of that section would say the holding was entirely cabined to 15 USC § 1392(b).

WTF.

Very true. And there's also a lot of people who are learning about specific agencies for the first time as they increasingly make news. But I think it's worrisome that people might be following the implications of UET and melding the president with agencies in a way that undermines their base rate.

Hmm, all that money and programming but the poor little libertarian think tanks have been sidelined. Not buying that. More likely they aren't going to say much because they care much more about tax breaks than civil rights.

There are plenty who aren't in government (i.e., big donors) who are part of what I'm talking about who are at least not vocally breaking from what the party is doing now.