
Lady Justice Isn’t Blind
07/19/23 • 46 min
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold, signifying that judges are neutral arbiters of the law. Unfortunately, thanks for a judicial doctrine known as Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has required judges to peek from behind that metaphorical blindfold and put a thumb on the scale for the most powerful litigant in our nation: the federal government. In a case called Brand X, the Court took Chevron deference to its logical conclusion, allowing agencies to overrule judicial decisions. One dissenter wrote that this was not only bizarre, but it was probably unconstitutional. That view has been picking up steam in the past decade. Next term, the Court will hear a case asking it to overturn Chevron deference.
Thanks for our guests Aditya Bamzai and Jeff Wall.
Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold, signifying that judges are neutral arbiters of the law. Unfortunately, thanks for a judicial doctrine known as Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has required judges to peek from behind that metaphorical blindfold and put a thumb on the scale for the most powerful litigant in our nation: the federal government. In a case called Brand X, the Court took Chevron deference to its logical conclusion, allowing agencies to overrule judicial decisions. One dissenter wrote that this was not only bizarre, but it was probably unconstitutional. That view has been picking up steam in the past decade. Next term, the Court will hear a case asking it to overturn Chevron deference.
Thanks for our guests Aditya Bamzai and Jeff Wall.
Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Previous Episode

A Ripsnorting Dissent
The government’s deprivation of life, liberty, or property is legitimate only if preceded by certain procedural protections—better known as due process of law. This includes reasonable notice of the rules so citizens can know and follow them. But a 1947 Supreme Court decision gave the burgeoning administrative state the ability to create new rules with retroactive application, through a process known as adjudication. A dissent by Justice Robert Jackson—who was no enemy of the administrative state—lambasted the Court for failing to scrutinize this action.
Thanks to our guests John Barrett and Joe Postell.
Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/dissed-270603/lady-justice-isnt-blind-32461929"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to lady justice isn’t blind on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy