Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's decision to quash Chevron deference means countless agency regulations are now more vulnerable to being challenged and struck down. Think the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to boost electric vehicle sales, discrimination protections against transgender people, and rules that expand eligibility for overtime.

Yesterday, we explained the history that led to this moment. Today, we look at the how the decision will play into a wave of regulatory lawsuits.

Related episodes:
The conservative roots behind the Chevron doctrine (Apple / Spotify)
Could SCOTUS outlaw wealth taxes (Apple / Spotify)

For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

Music by Drop Electric. Find us: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Newsletter.

When the Supreme Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 40 years ago, it didn't turn many heads. But eventually, it became the most widely cited case in all of administrative law. It set a legal precedent to give federal agencies the benefit of the doubt when the law is ambiguous, known as Chevron deference.

Now, a recent Supreme Court decision has set in motion another tectonic shift, effectively ending that precedent. Today, we dig into what Chevron deference is and how it actually came about. Then tomorrow we'll continue our focus on this significant change by looking at the potential fallout.

Related episodes:
A Supreme Court case that could reshape social media (Apple / Spotify)
Could SCOTUS outlaw wealth taxes (Apple / Spotify)

For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

Music by Drop Electric. Find us: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Newsletter.

The Supreme Court suggests a president's conversations with Justice Department officials are out of bounds for prosecutors -- even when he may be pressing them about investigations of his rivals.

On Monday the Supreme Court issued its most anticipated decision of the term — expanding the power of the presidency, and calling into question whether former President Trump will ever face a trial in federal court for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

In a 6-to-3 decision, along ideological lines, the Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for their core constitutional powers, and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts.

But the Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts.

Host Ailsa Chang speaks with constitutional law expert Kim Wehle about the legal issues raised by the ruling and with NPR Senior Political editor and Correspondent Domenico Montanaro about how this decision could impact the election.

For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

Email us at considerthis@npr.org.