The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, the early primaries really do benefit establishment democrats, and it seemingly painted a damning picture for Bernie. I think if we had synchronized primaries, this benefit would be much smaller and Bernie would’ve had a significant shot.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, that was disappointing. But I do think it was a tough situation. Sanders wasn’t a Dem, he was an independent. I think Warren as an established D could have had more pull and commanded more from the establishment side. Unfortunately she picked party over platform.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        One of the earliest was NH, which he did very well in, and which gave rise to “sanders has a chance!” And really shocked everyone.

        He probably did way better because he was hyped as having a legitimate shot after that, he even though it clearly wasn’t the case.

        She demolished him. The order of the voting had little to do with it, if not possibly even helping him.