Kate Shaw

So in some ways, I think what is most striking about this conversation is that we are having it at all, right?

Fifteen years ago, the idea that the Supreme Court might deign to invalidate the structure of the Fed based on this, at best, I think, historically and structurally and texturally questionable theory about the necessity of presidential control over the whole executive branch is kind of mind-blowing, right? So maybe they would actually...

Fifteen years ago, the idea that the Supreme Court might deign to invalidate the structure of the Fed based on this, at best, I think, historically and structurally and texturally questionable theory about the necessity of presidential control over the whole executive branch is kind of mind-blowing, right? So maybe they would actually...

be sympathetic to a challenge of some sort to limits on the president's ability to designate a chair, even if they would say, well, the governors can't be fired just because the president decides by fiat he wants to do that. But in some ways, it just underscores the enormous power that this court has asserted for itself over what our government looks like.

be sympathetic to a challenge of some sort to limits on the president's ability to designate a chair, even if they would say, well, the governors can't be fired just because the president decides by fiat he wants to do that. But in some ways, it just underscores the enormous power that this court has asserted for itself over what our government looks like.

So let's shift gears for a moment. And we have been talking around the Supreme Court, but I want to talk now more directly about the Supreme Court. And I want to do that by asking about the court's recent decision in Loperbright, which is a case that overruled the 40-year-old Chevron decision. Chevron basically said that a

So let's shift gears for a moment. And we have been talking around the Supreme Court, but I want to talk now more directly about the Supreme Court. And I want to do that by asking about the court's recent decision in Loperbright, which is a case that overruled the 40-year-old Chevron decision. Chevron basically said that a

And there's been a lot of public attention paid to the way that eliminating the rule announced in Chevron will reduce the power of agencies like the FDA or the EPA. But Loperbright is a little bit more complicated than that. Maybe let me start by asking you, when it comes to power, government power, who are the big winners and who are the losers under Loperbright?

And there's been a lot of public attention paid to the way that eliminating the rule announced in Chevron will reduce the power of agencies like the FDA or the EPA. But Loperbright is a little bit more complicated than that. Maybe let me start by asking you, when it comes to power, government power, who are the big winners and who are the losers under Loperbright?

So you mentioned the uncertainty about the full kind of scope and meaning of Loper Bright. Is that, do you think, a result of just sloppy drafting on the part of Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion? Is it something maybe more nefarious? The court wants to sow chaos in the agencies and in the lower courts.

So you mentioned the uncertainty about the full kind of scope and meaning of Loper Bright. Is that, do you think, a result of just sloppy drafting on the part of Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion? Is it something maybe more nefarious? The court wants to sow chaos in the agencies and in the lower courts.

Is it just that the whole thing is a product of a less than fully developed vision of the Constitution, you know, the role of agencies in our constitutional order? Like, what explains the uncertainty you think that remains in the wake of Loeberbright?

Is it just that the whole thing is a product of a less than fully developed vision of the Constitution, you know, the role of agencies in our constitutional order? Like, what explains the uncertainty you think that remains in the wake of Loeberbright?

So it seems to me that there are a couple of different ways to read the practical consequences of the court asserting this enormous new power for itself. And I take the point that the contours of that new power are actually very unclear as yet. But, you know, I guess I if it's possible to make some kind of predictive judgments at this point, is the result, you know, a weaker administrative state?

So it seems to me that there are a couple of different ways to read the practical consequences of the court asserting this enormous new power for itself. And I take the point that the contours of that new power are actually very unclear as yet. But, you know, I guess I if it's possible to make some kind of predictive judgments at this point, is the result, you know, a weaker administrative state?

Is it an administrative state that is just run by, you know, a smaller and less well-equipped number of bureaucrats that is the members of the federal judiciary? And I guess, you know, do you have thoughts about how this decision interacts with presidential power.

Is it an administrative state that is just run by, you know, a smaller and less well-equipped number of bureaucrats that is the members of the federal judiciary? And I guess, you know, do you have thoughts about how this decision interacts with presidential power.

You talked a little bit about Congress, and I think it's clear that if courts are a big winner here, Congress, depending on how the opinion gets understood, might be a big loser because Congress has made many decisions about what kind of agencies to create, what kinds of powers to give them, what kinds of

You talked a little bit about Congress, and I think it's clear that if courts are a big winner here, Congress, depending on how the opinion gets understood, might be a big loser because Congress has made many decisions about what kind of agencies to create, what kinds of powers to give them, what kinds of

procedures to tell them to follow and also pass substantive statutes that tell them to do things, identify endangered species, ensure workplace safety, right? Obviously, the list is infinitely long. So, court big winner, Congress big loser. Do we know yet, I guess, about agencies and what about the president?