It's rare for a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to publicly dissent from the Court's denial of review (certiorari), and rarer still for such public dissent to formally rebuke their own previous thinking (and court holding).
But that's exactly what happened when Justice Clarence Thomas indicated his desire to revisit his holding in "Brand X".
What was the Court's holding in the Brand X case?
How did it rely on the concept of Chevron Deference (and what is that anyway)?
And how would a change in the Court's deference to executive branch agencies change the landscape of modern US governance (including interpretations as far reaching as COPPA, Net Neutrality, IRS deadlines, and more)?
Deference to deference is no defense...in Virtual Legality.
#COPPA #Chevron #Deference
Discussed in this episode:
"Clarence Thomas regrets ruling that Ajit Pai used to kill net neutrality"
Ars Technica - February 26, 2020 - Jon Brodkin
"Justice Thomas rues missed opportunity to curtail government power"
The Hill - February 24, 2020 - John Kruzel
Baldwin v US
Denial of Cert; J. Thomas Dissent
Legal Information Institute
"Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law).
CHECK OUT THE REST OF THE SERIES HERE:
DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL.
PODCAST VERSIONS ALSO AVAILABLE
The Hoeg Law Firm is a business law firm with big law experience and a small firm approach focusing on start-ups, technology, financing, and everything else a business might need.