In this episode of the Grandiosity Podcast, the Supreme Court case Trump v. United States (2024) is read in its entirety. This landmark case explores the unprecedented indictment of former President Donald J. Trump, focusing on his actions following the November 2020 election. The case raises critical constitutional questions about the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed while in office. The Supreme Court examines the limits of a President’s power under Article II, the separation of powers, and when immunity applies to official versus unofficial conduct. This episode delves into key arguments surrounding presidential authority, the implications of criminal liability for former Presidents, and how the decision might influence the interpretation of executive power in the United States.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently issued a stay on the FCC's new regulation that classifies broadband internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This decision was based on several critical factors. The court determined that the broadband providers challenging the rule are likely to succeed on the merits, as the FCC's new rule addresses significant net neutrality issues that require explicit congressional authorization. The court noted that the FCC did not meet the stringent standards necessary to impose such comprehensive regulations. Additionally, the broadband providers demonstrated potential for significant and irreparable harm without a stay, including delays in product rollouts, competitive disadvantages in forming interconnection agreements, and substantial, non-recoverable compliance costs.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the public interest is best served by the correct application of the law, suggesting that the FCC might have overstepped its legal authority with this new regulation. It highlighted the need for clear legislative direction in addressing significant policy issues within the rapidly evolving internet landscape. The case consolidates eight petitions from various circuits, with the Sixth Circuit designated to review the matter. The court has postponed the rule's implementation and set a schedule for oral arguments in the fall, along with a detailed timeline for submitting briefs from both sides.

The judicial doctrine established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which compels courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, faces a momentous challenge that could reshape administrative law. For decades, courts have been required to employ a two-step framework, first determining if Congress has directly addressed the issue at hand, and if not, deferring to any reasonable agency interpretation. This practice has been criticized for undermining the judiciary’s role in independently interpreting laws, a principle enshrined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The present cases bring this tension to a head, questioning whether Chevron's deference is fundamentally at odds with the APA’s mandate that courts, not agencies, decide legal questions.

In a dramatic showdown, the fate of Chevron's deference is tested through a conflict over the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) imposed a rule requiring Atlantic herring fishermen to fund observers on their vessels, a mandate not explicitly authorized by the MSA. This rule has deeply impacted small fishing businesses, slashing their profits and sparking fierce legal battles. The courts have so far sided with NMFS, citing Chevron to uphold the rule despite the statute’s ambiguity. Now, as the Supreme Court takes on these cases, the very foundation of judicial deference to agency interpretations hangs in the balance, promising a dramatic re-evaluation of the balance of power between the judiciary and executive agencies.