Supreme Court weakens federal regulators with Chevron overturning, threatening net neutrality, right to repair, big tech regulation, and more
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.
I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.
It's simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.
Corrupt doesn't even begin to describe it these days. They ruled recently that they are legally allowed to accept bribes, so long as the bribe comes after the decision is made.
The laws of the United States of America are literally for sale by conservative judges. This breach of justice is actively dismantling a cornerstone of our countries successful history.
Oh, the irony, that the "conservative" party is the one radically destroying the highest court in America. Their supporters can wave all the flags they want this week, but what they represent is actively destroying this country.
It's FOR the people BY the people, not for the highest bidder. at least, that's how it used to be before Trump's presidency.
You said “or” there when really it should be “and”
Considering the context, I took it as an inclusive or.
For some justices, I agree. However, as a general principle, I think of the vast majority of "bad people" as incompetent rather than malicious unless there's proof of guilt. I don't know enough about all 9 justices to comfortably say they're evil or corrupt.
It's not about "bad people" or incompetence. It's about fundamentally violent and corrupt systems of controlling humanity and destroying the planet for personal gain...
This rube goldberg system of injustice was literally invented by slavers.
Ironic considering everything they're "overturning" is former Supreme Court rulings that granted all these rights.
To be consistently evil you need checks and balances. This is the system at work.
They interpret the law. And when existing law has bad policy outcomes people get made that 9 unelected lawyers in robes aren't legislating for us. When the out comes are good people don't hear about them or forget them.
The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.
It's a big club. You aren't in it. I'm not in it. everyone you or I know isn't in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren't in the club.
How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?
You take it from them.
this. it's all a big game and there are only winners and losers. good and evil are just ideas. if you believe in something, you go for the throat to make it reality. otherwise, you're just a loser on the internet bitching about it. more of you need to wake up to this fact.
No one wants to be the vanguard
then we need to keep encouraging chaotic good as an option until we are all ready to do something.
Aight lmk when we're "all" ready I guess and I'll go right after you. /s
all you gotta do is just support a radical by-any-means-necessary approach and be vocal about it until it reaches critical mass.
I miss you George Carlin.
The first time I saw a headline about this, just saying that the Supreme Court overturned "the Chevron doctrine" my initial thought was that I have no idea wtf they did but if the votes went 6-3 I know it can't be anything good.
Much to my consternation I appear to have been right.
I've known this was coming for years. Once Goursich was added it was known to those watching the courts exactly what would happen.
Before one of the hosts did the typical "become an unwanted sexual advance asshole" like everyone seems to become after they gain some fame, Opening Arguments podcast was a great way to learn about how depressing our future will be.
It's absolutely fucking disgusting that no matter what the outcome SHOULD be, you can almost always call how this court will go simply by asking "what benefits the ultra wealthy and what have conservatives wanted forever?"
Yup, that Open Args deep dive into chevron deference was an eye opener and called this one years ago. Sucks AT turned out to be That Guy.
Ever find a good OA replacement ?
Sadly I did not, but I also just stopped seeking that kind of information after Biden won. I needed a break from the madness. Lol
I think I still need to back away to be honest... Being surrounded by MAGA and having two spiders fighting over a cockroach where my memory should be, any time I try to utilize what I've learned I just get shit all over by the firehouse of fox news b.s and the inability to remember things to refute it. I'm doing everyone a giant disservice by being another example of "a stupid liberal who has no idea what's going on."
Don't be so hard on yourself! Thanks for the answer.
Listening to OA sometimes made me feel bad. Being a "reality junkie" is a slippery slope to what is now called being "blackpilled". Hope you can feel better soon.
Never listened to OA, but Strict Scrutiny is one I listen to for Supreme Court news and analysis.
Looks perfect thank you
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn't even applied it since 2016.
Exactly! Time to make the SC bigger, so you have to bribe more than 3 or 4 or 6 to get your anti-people policy pushed through...
Trump would add 10 more. Its not enough
This sucks ass. It’s hard to not become blackpilled from Friday’s rulings.
Is there a word to be People's Will pilled? Cause that's where I'm heading.
Personally, I take comfort that the executive will be weakened as it looks more and more likely that we're about to have a wannabe dictator coming to office.
It'll only be weak for the presidents they don't like
Some thing needs to keep the court in check and remove the bad apples.
It’s called Congress. Too bad they are made up of spineless, greedy pieces of shit to do anything about any of this.
This is why the right came for Chevron, they can buy Congress. Much harder to buy a whole agency.
the american people are just as spineless. anybody could open up a few seats. all it takes is a little patience and planning. those of you waiting on a corrupt system to fix itself are the biggest dipshits on the planet.
What's the suggestion here?
do something or accept your dystopia
Frank Castle stuff methinks
mass protests, riots, a god damn revolution. But Americans are pansies and won't do that. The common excuse of "but I have bills to pay, I have a job to go to, I can't go riot/protest/revolt"
Cause I'm sure all the people who have taken part in all the successful revolutions in all of history their first concern was "but I gotta pay my rent". It's a death by a thousand cuts. the powers that be KNOW americans are pissed off and they also KNOW americans won't do anything about it, by design. all it takes is a revolution, but Americans won't do that, they're too afraid.
Every judge is a bad apple. Just fossilized cultists in robes judging everybody else.
Grow up.
Dont americans always claim that is why they have the 2nd amendment?
The illusion of democracy has entirely worn off. When are we taking to the streets with guns?
don't take to the streets. take to the dark web. be smart. don't be a mob. know which targets bring the most results. clandestine and precise. once upon a time, we had very smart people at the helm of the internet. i fear those people don't exist any more.
That takes an amount of cunning and resources that few people have. I think most people with the ability to do that benefit from the current status quo.
After we disarm the extremely weaponized cops, military, etc... And we don't even need guns.
lol. you'll just legislate the revolution, amirite?
We need guns because we'll never disarm the state's goons.
Democracy isn't when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.
It's when appointed officials side with the people, and the people are educated and thoughtful.
Or so I'm told. I've never actually seen one. It's like a unicorn.
As the saying goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
They say so many things about magical place called European Union, where all unicorns live.
These are hugely unpopular moves from the supreme court.
the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.
Will be?
I haven't had any interest in visiting the place since Bush was president.
And tou don't even have Putin. If you need one, you can get one for free if you choose pickup. Also you might consider Boris "parlament is not place for discussion" Grizlov.
I feel like I'm living in the prequel to The Handmaid's Tale
It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren't to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
It's a great narrative that happens to justify a power grab by the judicial branch; probably the least democratic of the three branches.
It absolutely the least democratic, they aren't representatives they're judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.
That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
This doesn't seem to be working as intended. We have "originalists" who turn that concept on it's head and are explicitly a political project.
But both sides are the same.
God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn't be getting this free reign. Fuck.
I wish Gore had won, every other headline wouldn’t be about the impending climate doom and what we’re not doing to stop it
Oh wait, he DID win and the fucking court stole it
Don't forget that 3 of the current justices (Barrett, roberts, kavanaugh) were on bush's legal team in 2000 Bush vs Gore
FL would've been a landslide and the courts wouldn't have even been asked if the greens voted for Gore.
I wish the democrats didn’t force her, the candidate that was predicted to be weakest against Trump and the only one likely to lose, through the primary with every trick they could. The democrats tried to skew and steer their own voters and we all lost because of it.
The only one likely to lose? I think you have your facts confused on that one.
I don’t. She was predicted to be the weakest against Trump during the primaries.
You're going to have to prove that. I want to see numbers.
Bernie consistently had better projected general election margins during the primary. https://web.archive.org/web/20160217041242/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Yes that's nice, it was not the assertion though so I don't know why you're supplying it.
What exactly is the distinction between "weakest against Trump" and "had worse polling margins against Trump?" If you specifically want to dial in on the 'likely to lose' claim that isn't what you were asking for in the comment I replied to.
She demolished sanders in the primary. Get over it. The belief that she only won because of some dirty tricks or that sanders was screwed is just nonsense. I wish he had won, and i voted for him, but unfortunately reality tells a much different story. This belief he was screwed is no different than the belief that trump was screwed in 2020.
The delegates all predicated their votes to make it look like Hillary had already won before the elections even started
So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.
It's grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.
The race started with Hillary having a commanding lead because the superdelegates were allowed to pre vote. It was clearly intended to manipulate the voters. Let’s not feign ignorance.
She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.
Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.
You’re just being purposely obtuse. If you see that she already has a commanding lead before the first vote is cast then you might just not vote if you prefer someone else. Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.
Projection. Find me one person who didn't vote because of the superdelegates or voted a certain way because of the superdelegates. After that we can discuss whether or not we think it's reasonable to believe it may have swung in 12 points.
Certainly she was their person, but there is scant evidence that they did anything to make this happen. The emails would have revealed a whole lot more if that was the case. Remember, one of the worst things that came out of the emails that was a focal point of the complaints, was saying mean things about sanders. Thats how bad it was. Mean things. Maybe this is all "they could to give her advantages" but if that's the case then the whole argument is silly.
Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.
The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.
Sanders also go the most positive coverage in the media.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a deeply unpopular take but it's the correct one. I caucusef for Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 and the amount of Hilary/Biden supporters to Bernie supporters in both respective years was dishearteningly high.
The only people who show up for primaries and caucuses are predominantly white, Christian heterosexuals of retirement age.
They're absolutely fucking terrified of anything remotely approaching progressive policy and they'll never, ever let us run anyone who doesn't make them feel safe with all their old white money.
It's possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.
Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn't make her a better candidate. The General proved that.
If she "demolished" Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the "best" candidate. That's your logic here.
I'm sure you'll be able to back this up with some facts.
At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I'm just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.
Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn't mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.
Clinton's primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it's evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that's fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn't decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.
If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren't aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that's basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.
You keep throwing shit out but don't back any of it up. Why would i continue to follow your ever shifting justifications?
One thing i will address is this. I understand that everyone has differing priorities, desires for me, and opinions than me. Clinton would have been a perfectly fine POTUS, so it's not hard for me to accept that other people have a different opinion.
The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.
And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?
Yes, there is. He was painted as an "extremist" by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as "Bernie Bros" despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can't be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his "extreme left wing" policies.
There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton's campaign.
Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.
It's not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it's established, yes, they were. That's how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people's perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren't powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.
I'm sure the facts don't matter to you, but I'll post it anyway just in case someone else comes in here and thinks your argument is rooted in reality:
"A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."[1] They write that "Sanders's appeal, like Trump's, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage."[1] Furthermore, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."[1]
Ohh, a political "scientist" said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn't actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that's what was happening.
Must've just been a coincidence!
The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.
No, a political scientist didn't "say" it, they did a study with an attempt to objectively determine what actually happened, and the evidence led to a certain conclusion. You just don't like that the evidence contradicts how you feel so you're sarcastically trying to hand-wave it away. This isn't to say I know for a fact that what they say is the truth, but their evidence-based position is 1000x more reliable than your feelings.
Neither of these statements is true.
Projection. Notice how I've been providing facts and links, all you've done is provide how you feel about it. You are just like the Trump supporters that think they know the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. It turns out cultists are not all that different from other cultists.
So you ignore the facts you don't like, and take the ones you do. And I'm projecting...
Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it's not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?
TBH with how Obama treated Netanyahu versus Trump admin backing single state solution: I bet the war on the Gaza Strip wouldn't be happening, either. Not at the same scale, at least.
Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should've run, she's directly responsible for Trump.
You think she would have nominated people like kagan or people like gorsuch? Did you see how these votes went down partisan lines? I see for your other responses to me that reality ain't necessarily your thing, but just try to think about this rationally for a second.
That being said, if sanders had won the wh, his choices would have likely been even better.
FTFY.
Literally all of these have been a long ideological lines. Do you really think she would have appointed conservatives? Are "muh both sides"ers really this out of touch with reality?
They become less "supreme" with every decision anymore
That just means they come with sour cream and tomatoes
And beans. Lots of fetid sour beans
United enShittification of America
United enShittified States of America
the stock market likes it
What does stare decisis mean? Asking for 6 justices.
I think it means something similar to YOLO.
It’s a new kind of sandwich you take a couple bites out of them throw it away in front of homeless people.
Are there any of the rules being weakened that are pro-company/anti-consumer/anti-worker? Not all government rules help people.
Like did OCSH decide I cannot sue my employer, but now I can type shit? I figure the only want to fix this is to hurt Harlan Crow with it.
lmao
Yeah...
Truly, the best democracy money can buy. "This was the supreme court", all of which was appointed by different presidents in different time periods, so a direct consequence of political will
Holy shit i can't believe someone is trying to both sides this. Trump got three nominees, and put 3 far right wing people on the court. If Clinton had put three people on, this would have all gone absolutely been like left wing of the court now, and these people would have gone the other way. And we still have morons clinging to the nonsense that it's the fault of both sides. Amazing.
I don't think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.
What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That'd only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
Nor is that what i did. Or wait...are you arguing that they aren't right wing...because then..wow, I'm not sure what to say.
The fact that it doesn't always line up left right doesn't change the fact that these did.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn't. Which I consider you don't given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn't be on the same sides.
Court overturns roe v wade.
"Well, it's kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way."
It's the point i made, and one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I didn't contend that if you follow a linear political view they'd be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
Lol
So quibbling about how far right they actually are, rather than the actual point that the court is obviously much further right than it would have been had Clinton won.
I kind of feel justified in my "strawmen."
I'm not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices. 3 is a significant number, but not a majority, and only half of the 6 votes that said "akshually, public officers receiving gifts after doing a favor isn't bribery"
You should then also realize how little you know about it and not use it to make sweeping generalizations about America politics.
But no, you're still trying to both sides it. Fucking wow.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here on lemmy, but I think this is a good thing.
Chevron is a good idea in theory, give experts in regulating a specific thing more leeway to manage that. Problem is if you give a bureaucratic agency an inch they become maniacal dictators. They start calling bees a kind of fish and a puddle in your backyard a lake, they randomly change up their own decisions making normal people criminals overnight or vice versa, and sometimes they even just try to make their own rules.
If you want a law then make a law, don't have an unelected bureaucrat issue an edict. If the legislative branch is a mess the solution is to fix the mess, not hand off their powers to the executive branch. Again, if used by level headed people it would have been great, but eventually after so many decisions that would sound too comical for a parody we can't have nice things anymore.
Do you have any non-hyperbolic examples of this kind of overreach?
iirc they DID classify bees as fish but only because it was the only way they could enact any kind of protections for them.
And it wasn't a "bureaucratic agency" either.
Legislators made a law classifying invertebrates as fish. And judges interpreted the law as written. This is the clownery that happens when people with zero expertise control the law.
This is exactly what that fool was advocating for....
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn't have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
Alternate source
Looks more like a legislative skill issue than a judicial one to me. I don't know what is expected of the judges aside from interpreting the law.
It was a beuroctatic agency, theCalifornia Fish and Game Commission reinterpreted an existing law meant to protect fish instead of seeking a law that actually protected bees.
Since they won't answer, let me answer for them...
No. They have no examples or citations for any of their nonsense.
Lol, actually I will answer, and yes it will be with citations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates
I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I'd guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer's salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.
The hyperbole is the point. They're explaining that such a thing is theoretically possible.
It's not hyperbolic
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
Lol, those were not hyperbole, although I get where their absurdity might make you assume they were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates
Thank goodness!