Tue. Jul 16th, 2024

Clarence Thomas’ Koch Party Is Latest Shocking Ethics Breach<!-- wp:html --><p>Alex Wong</p> <p>Justice <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-enjoyed-38-vacations-paid-for-by-billionaires-report">Clarence Thomas</a> once championed the Supreme Court line of precedent giving deference to federal agency expertise—the so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine—<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/967/#tab-opinion-1961903">writing</a> in 2005 that the Federal Telecommunications Commission was “in a far better position to address these questions than we are” in a case involving regulation of broadband internet service given that the “subject matter [that] is technical, complex, and dynamic.”</p> <p>Thomas’ decision in that case—one known as Brand X—was no outlier given that the Chevron case from which the precedent arose has been cited more than 15,000 times since being decided by the high court in 1984. But 15 years later, Thomas <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/thomas-criticizes-previous-high-court-173603914.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJvcHVibGljYS5vcmcvYXJ0aWNsZS9jbGFyZW5jZS10aG9tYXMtc2VjcmV0bHktYXR0ZW5kZWQta29jaC1icm90aGVycy1kb25vci1ldmVudHMtc2NvdHVz&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHVyG3Uk1gL0YiCFw1BSF2vfBzaYgvKtcjPyWuhzkdZooezK33_57CZlL29Onv5dbvQBXoWzDDVnLteyg3LSAZl8nkFonmJsSEagTsxilWkJPTGzEHR_BBdU8szO7HeVTB4wQBOytrQ1ZnMr4OmUF1-rd5J2A86lINzt-k4k8B--">announced</a> that his own decision in that case was wrong because it added to the “constitutional deficiencies of Chevron and exacerbates them.” Unusually, Thomas announced his change of heart in a dissent where he advocated that SCOTUS should have accepted a case for the purpose of overruling his own opinion.</p> <p>What changed?</p> <p><a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-koch-party-is-latest-shocking-ethics-breach-shan-wu-writes">Read more at The Daily Beast.</a></p><!-- /wp:html -->

Alex Wong

Justice Clarence Thomas once championed the Supreme Court line of precedent giving deference to federal agency expertise—the so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine—writing in 2005 that the Federal Telecommunications Commission was “in a far better position to address these questions than we are” in a case involving regulation of broadband internet service given that the “subject matter [that] is technical, complex, and dynamic.”

Thomas’ decision in that case—one known as Brand X—was no outlier given that the Chevron case from which the precedent arose has been cited more than 15,000 times since being decided by the high court in 1984. But 15 years later, Thomas announced that his own decision in that case was wrong because it added to the “constitutional deficiencies of Chevron and exacerbates them.” Unusually, Thomas announced his change of heart in a dissent where he advocated that SCOTUS should have accepted a case for the purpose of overruling his own opinion.

What changed?

Read more at The Daily Beast.

By