I saw this post on TikTok, and while I think the person explaining this is wholeheartedly wrong about deference to the experts and political economy (which I’ll get into), this is a good primer.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNjPf5tp/
Basically, the original Chevron decision set up a legal standard called the rational basis, which essentially says that if there’s a straightforward line of reasoning towards achieving a goal, regardless of whether the reasoning is likely correct, it’s something agencies can enforce/do.
So, in essence, it matters little whether a policy will achieve its goals, provided that there’s some explanation for why it can be done. Under Chevron administrative agencies had broad power to effectively do whatever they wanted, and a lack of stringent review over their powers. If they wanted to change directions on a whim, they were able to do so.
Also, unfortunately, administrative agencies tend not to assess regulations on a cost/benefit basis, despite Sunstein’s efforts. Given this information, one would assume that a decent portion of regulations likely fail this goal, even assuming p-hacking. This gets to questions of why show deference in the first place, especially since A. Experts are not elected (so fails democratic goals) B. Experts are often political appointees (dept. of education being teachers union bosses) (so fails egalitarian goals), C. Experts generally don’t have strong quantitative economic training to evaluate their own programs (fails program evaluation goals).
The only justification that remains for why experts are given this power is their expertise. Yet, even this isn’t safe territory to retreat into. In several of Phillip Tetlock’s books, experts are oftentimes no better at assessing the future than smart lay people. This implies that given the political considerations previously mentioned, giving them this power might be less advantageous.
A final consideration is corruption broadly. Discretion is where corruption is able to lie. Consistent, straightforward laws may minimize the ability of unjust outcomes.
Overall, very happy about this development and Supreme Court.
Isadore Johnson's Website 