Podcasts about Natural Resources Defense Council

Celebrate World Bee Day with Daniel Raichel, the acting director of the Pollinator Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who talks about the current state of bees and what these pollinators mean to biodiversity and human livelihoods. Then, journalist Chris Berdik shares his new book, "Clamor: How Noise Took Over the World and How We Can Take it Back." In it, he brings attention to a pollutant that may not be getting the attention it deserves.

Join us for On the Mission: Earth Day with Amy Cadora as we explore how Norwex is making a difference for the planet through sustainable solutions. Amy shares how the Safe Haven 5 can help reduce chemicals and waste in your home while making everyday cleaning safer. Tune in for practical tips on creating a healthier home and a greener future with Norwex! Stats Shared in Podcast: • Using just the 5 products in our Safe Haven 5 Set and water helps eliminate 80+ chemicals in your home. (Based on a comparison of Norwex Safe Haven 5 to 18 retail brand cleaning products, 2020.) • Regular use of chemical sprays has long-term impact on lung function decline, equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. (American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine | bit.ly/36XHLEo ) • 45 different chemicals have been identified in household dust. (Natural Resources Defense Council on.nrdc.org/3BBSm67) • Up to 85% of contaminants are brought indoors in the first 4 steps. The floors of your home can harbor pollutants, chemicals, dust and bacteria. (University of Georgia College of Family and Consumer Sciences | bit.ly/3i6hDO9) • The Superior Mop Starter System physically removes up to 99% of bacteria from a surface with only water when following proper care and use instructions. (https://nrwx.info/Mop)

Joining us on Well Said is Ms. Kate Donovan and Dr. Chase Moon. Kate Donovan is the Director of Northeast Environmental Health and Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and Dr. Charles (Chase) Moon, is a Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Climate Science at the Icahn School […]

For Part 2d of this deep dive we finish the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) decision. Recall, this decision reversed the RB Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. It was itself reversed last year in 2024 by Republicans on the US Supreme Court. This in turn sets us up for Part 6, where we'll begin to look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Ellen Kamhi talks with Dr. Charles (Chase) Moon, a Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Climate Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.  He co-chairs the New York State American Academy of Pediatrics committees on Environmental Health & Climate Change, as well as their Public Policy & Advocacy Committee.  She also talks with Kate Donovan, the Director of Northeast Environmental Health and Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She works on a range of environmental and health issues. Donovan also held roles with Environmental Advocates NY and the Department of Environment in Melbourne, Australia. Donovan attended Skidmore College, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, and Pace Law School. They speak about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.  www.nrdc.org

Congress often passes major legislation setting out broad principles, and then lets the federal agencies sort out the details. But what should an agency do if Congress's instructions are ambiguous or silent? That was the question facing the Supreme Court 40 years ago, when the Reagan administration's Environmental Protection Agency adopted a business-friendly interpretation of key provisions of the Clean Air Act. After the Natural Resources Defense Council sued, the Supreme Court set out a principle that would define the extent of agency power for decades – until last year, when Loper Bright upended the way courts evaluate agency actions. This season on Uncommon Law, we'll explore the rise and fall of agency power, and what that could mean for the future of regulation in America. Plus: Will President Trump and his advisor Elon Musk be able to use the new legal landscape to eliminate the regulations they find too burdensome? Featuring: David Doniger, Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Jennifer Hijazi, environment reporter for Bloomberg Industry Group

On this episode of The Green Hour, we sit down with Gerald Torres, Professor of Environmental Justice and Law at Yale University, Board Chair of Earth Day, and Trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council.In this episode, we dive into:

Flush out the facts on toilet paper sustainability in this eye-opening episode of The Backyard Naturalists! As an award-winning podcast hosted by certified nature enthusiasts—including Master Naturalists and Wildlife Ambassadors—we're diving into the environmental impact of one of life's everyday essentials.   Join us as we break down the latest findings from the Natural Resources Defense Council's The Issue with Tissue report, which grades popular toilet paper brands based on their environmental impact. We'll explore the critical role of Canada's boreal forests, why recycled content matters, and how some major companies are still falling short when it comes to sustainability.   If you've never thought about what goes into your toilet paper, this episode just might change your perspective! Tune in for simple ways to make greener choices and learn how your purchasing decisions can help protect our forests for future generations.   If you have ideas for topics that you'd like us to pursue, send us a message either on our Facebook page or our website. We would really like to hear from you.   Connect with the Backyard Naturalists on the Web, Facebook and Instagram.   Please visit and support our presenting sponsor, Backyard Birds at http://www.thebirdfoodstore.com/. A mecca for bird lovers and bird watchers, Backyard Birds is an independent family-owned business located in Matthews, NC (next to Dairy Queen), just southeast of Charlotte.   Thanks for listening to The Backyard Naturalists.  We hope you have a day filled with the wonders of nature. Get outside and take a walk on the wild side! Please don't forget to leave a 5-star review for The Backyard Naturalists podcast.   Production services for The Backyard Naturalists podcast are provided by Downtown Podcasting. To start a conversation on how you can have a podcast, simply send an email to info@downtownpodcasting.com.

What hath Individual Liberty to do with proper and correct, univocal definitions of terms ? For Part 4 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Wind energy. Whether it's offshore or on land, wind energy is a booming and enormously promising industry that can play a big role in ending our heroin-like addiction to fossil fuels. What's more, because of its geography, North Carolina is extremely well-positioned to benefit from its growth. Tragically and bizarrely, however, the Trump administration is […]

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 3 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Bees and other pollinators are vital to ecosystems and agriculture, yet their populations face mounting threats from climate change, habitat loss, and pesticide use. In this episode of People Places Planet, Rebecca Riley, Managing Director of Food and Agriculture at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Saff Killingsworth, an Endangered Species Conservation Biologist at the Xerces Society, join host Dara Albrecht to explore how legal frameworks and science intersect to address these challenges. They discuss legislative milestones like New York's Birds and Bees Protection Act, the role of extinction risk assessments, and how scientific research on pollinator behavior and habitat can shape effective policies. This episode details the importance of science-informed legal frameworks in safeguarding pollinators and the ecosystems they support. ★ Support this podcast ★

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

This week, we delve into the pervasive presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in everyday household items, such as cosmetics, cookware, and dental floss, and the significant health risks they pose. Linked to cancer, hormone disruption, liver and thyroid issues, reproductive harm, and abnormal fetal development, PFAS exposure has become a growing public health concern. Advocates are urging the state legislature to act by passing four critical bills to protect consumers before the session ends in June 2025. Joining the conversation are two leading experts in the fight against PFAS: Dr. Charles Moon, Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Kate Donovan, Director of Northeast Environmental Health and Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Together with Tee, they explore the history and health implications of PFAS, discuss current legislative efforts to reduce exposure, and share practical advice for minimizing PFAS in daily life. This insightful episode highlights the vital role of government action, public advocacy, and individual awareness in tackling this environmental and health challenge. Connect with Kate & Charles:  Website Instagram X Follow Therese "Tee" Forton-Barnes and The Green Living Gurus: Tee's Organics - Therese's Healthy Products for You and Your Home: Check out these incredible products made only with purified water, seven essential oils, and vinegar. Once you clean with them, you will be addicted! No more spraying chemicals in your home. Use the code Healthyliving for a 15% discount on my products at Shop Tee's Organics Austin Air Purifiers: For Podcast listeners, take 15% off any Austin Air product; please email Tee@thegreenlivinggurus.com and mention that you want to buy a product and would like the discount. See all products here: Austin Air The Green Living Gurus Website  Instagram YouTube Facebook Healthy Living Group on Facebook Tip the podcaster! Support Tee and the endless information that she provides: Patreon Venmo: @Therese-Forton-Barnes last four digits of her cell are 8868 For further info contact Tee: Email: Tee@thegreenlivinggurus.com Cell: 716-868-8868 DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED HERE IS GENERAL GUIDANCE AND NOT MEANT TO BE USED FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROVIDER OR DOCTOR FOR MEDICAL ADVICE. Produced By: Social Chameleon

Did you know that neonicotinoids are among the most ecologically destructive pesticides we've seen since DDT? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Dan Raichel, J.D., Executive Director of the Pollinators and Pesticides Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Raichel discusses the widespread use of, and harm from, neonicotinoid use in agriculture, lawns and gardens, and New York state's Birds and Bees Protection Act. Learn how “neonics,” the widely used neurotoxic class of pesticides, cause harm to bees, pollinators, birds, soil microbes, fish, and mammals including humans.Related Websites: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/daniel-raichel/new-york-enacts-nation-leading-law-protect-bees-birds-and-people  www.nrdc.org Saw Mill River Audubon presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI9IZtMYQXw

This week's episode is the final rerun from the Resources Radio archive that we'll air during our December break. We'll return with a new episode next week; in the meantime, enjoy this one and poke around the archive at Resources.org for more topics you might be interested in. In this week's episode rerun, host Daniel Raimi talks with David Hawkins, director of climate policy in the Climate & Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the board of directors at Resources for the Future. Hawkins has decades of experience working on energy and climate policy issues in NGOs and government. He walks us through the past 60 years of federal climate policy in the United States; helps us understand the scientific, political, and economic drivers that have shaped policy decisions from the 1960s all the way up through today, including a reflection on the Trump years; and takes a look ahead to the next four years under a new administration. References and recommendations: "Braiding Sweetgrass" by Robin Wall Kimmerer; https://milkweed.org/book/braiding-sweetgrass "Coffeeland" by Augustine Sedgewick; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/316748/coffeeland-by-augustine-sedgewick/

Friday, December 20th, 2024Today, the Georgia state Court of Appeals disqualifies Fani Willis from the 2020 election subversion case; Elon Musk forces a spending bill into the trash and threatens Mike Johnson's gavel; President Biden has just set new climate goals which of course will face obstacles under the incoming administration; Elon Musk's drug use and ties to Putin could lead to his security clearance being revoked if he tries to upgrade it; a special alert for government workers as a shutdown looms; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Stories:Musk Says Jump, A Spending Bill Lands In The Trash and Johnson's Gavel Is Again On The Line (Kate Riga | Talking Points Memo)Elon Musk's drug use and Putin ties has stopped SpaceX to avoid asking for higher security clearance: report (Io Dodds | Independent)Biden just set a new climate goal. Trump and other obstacles await. (Maxine Joselow | The Washington Post)Guest: John Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232The Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy Tourhttps://sexyliberal.comFrom The Good NewsCheck out Dells Animal Hospital or Madison Veterinary Specialists and let them know you would like to donate towards Bullies-N-Friends vet bills.Bullies-N-Friends (Petfinder)I Made It Out of Clay (Original) a book by Beth KanderCharismatic Megaplastics - Daily Beans Episode Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

CLEO's Susan Glickman talks about climate and energy policy in the context of her 20-plus years of public advocacy work. Susan is the Vice President of Policy & Partnerships at The CLEO Institute. Named to Florida Trend's Inaugural List of 500 Most Influential Business Leaders, Susan has been working on climate and energy issues for more than two decades. She was the Florida Director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and a consultant to numerous national and state organizations from the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Climate Group, Our Children's Trust, the Center for Climate Integrity, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the National Prostate Cancer Coalition and the Trust for America's Health.  Susan is Vice-President of the Board of SELF – Solar and Energy Loan Fund. They are the lead applicant for Florida's successful Solar for All grant ($156 million for solar for low income families). She is on the Advisory Council for The Invading Sea – an editorial collaborative of Florida's news and editorial outlets. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs? 2. Should the Court overrule Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron U-S-A Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is overruled. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court (which also decided the consolidated case, Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 requires courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" when reviewing agency actions. This means courts should use their own judgment to interpret laws, not defer to agencies' interpretations. The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U-S-A v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., contradicts this principle. Chevron required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes if those interpretations were reasonable. Chevron was based on a flawed assumption that Congress intends to delegate interpretive authority to agencies whenever a law is ambiguous. This assumption doesn't reflect reality and goes against the traditional role of courts. Chevron has been difficult to apply consistently and has led to confusion in lower courts. It has also been gradually limited by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Thus, Chevron should be overruled because it contradicts the APA, is based on faulty reasoning, has proven unworkable in practice, and hasn't created the kind of settled expectations that would justify keeping it in place. However, this decision does not necessarily overturn the specific outcomes of past cases that used Chevron. Those outcomes would need to be challenged separately. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to No. 22-1219. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 22-451. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Episode Page The latest episode of the Ecosystem Member podcast is with the amazing interdisciplinary artist and environmental activist, Jenny Kendler. Many of you listening are probably familiar with Kendler's work thanks to her most recent solo project on Governors Island being reviewed and featured on the front page of The New York Times. The exhibition included nine sculptures that used materials from the ocean itself to raise awareness about endangered marine ecosystems. In the episode we talk about the piece “Other of Pearl”, which is made up of 12 oyster half shells where the oyster shell was grown around a bio-based figures of Greek and Roman antiquities. The exhibition is a perfect example of Kendler's work, which aims decenter the human to make space for the full biodiversity of Earth. Some of the other pieces we discuss include 'Birds Watching', which inverts the gaze of birdwatching using the eyes of endangered and/or threatened birds due to climate change, and 'Music for Elephants', which uses a player piano with ivory keys playing music created from data on elephant poaching that is driven by the ivory trade. As a podcast that aims to examine the relationship humans have with nature and the more-than-human world, her work is an incredible example of how art can ask big questions about that relationship. While the conversation focuses on her artistic work - which has been shown around the world at London's Hayward Gallery, Storm King Art Center, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, the MCA Chicago and public locations as diverse as urban riverwalks, remote deserts and tropical forests - we also talk about her own relationship with nature and the more-than-human world. The topic being particularly relevant as she was just named an Artistic Fellow for the Center for Humans and Nature after spending 10 years as the artist-in-residence with the environmental non-profit NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council. She also sits on boards for 350.org and artist residency ACRE, and is a co-founder of Artists Commit, an artist-led effort to raise climate-consciousness in the art world. We talk a lot about specific pieces in this episode, so make sure to visit the podcast episode page at ecosystemmember.com/podcast, or watch the episode on Spotify or YouTube to see the work we're discussing. Thanks to Jenny for taking time to chat openly about her work and background, and thanks to you for listening. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to subscribe on your preferred podcast platform and if you are so inclined leave us a five star review. These are signals to the platform that the podcast has value and increases its visibility to potential listeners. Links Jenny Kendler's Website Jenny Kendler's Instagram Jenny Kendler in The New York Times Thomas Nagel / What is it like to be a bat? Billion Oyster Project Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson's Climate Action Venn

Dr. Charles (Chase) Moon, MD is a Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Climate Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.  He co-chairs the New York State American Academy of Pediatrics committees on Environmental Health & Climate Change, as well as their Public Policy & Advocacy Committee.  Kate Donovan is the Director of Northeast Environmental Health and Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She works on a range of environmental and health issues. Donovan also held roles with Environmental Advocates NY and the Department of Environment in Melbourne, Australia. Donovan attended Skidmore College, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, and Pace Law School. CONTACT: Natural Resources Defense Council  https://www.nrdc.org/ https://www.facebook.com/nrdc.org

Want to practice regenerative agriculture? Daniel Rath, Agricultural Soil Carbon Scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council recommends that you start by asking what you want to regenerate. Beneficial practices including integrating livestock, crop rotations, cover cropping, minimizing tillage, increasing diversity, improving soil health, adding organic matter, and reducing external inputs will vary site to site. A long-term study found that these practices improved above and below ground biodiversity, increased water storage and infiltration, bolstered resilience to climate change, increased carbon and organic matter storage, and, impressively improved human health. Listen to the end to learn how soil metagenomics has the potential to not only tell us what is living in the soil but how the organisms interact. Resources:         231: Stacking Regenerative Practices to Create a Healthy Vineyard Daniel Rath Daniel Rath on Google Scholar Daniel Rath on National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Healthy Soils Playlist (podcast play list) NRDC Regenerative Agriculture 101 page Soil Biodiversity in California Agriculture What the Soil Can Teach Us | Daniel Rath | TEDxBelmopan Wine grape grower perceptions and attitudes about soil health Vineyard Team Programs: Juan Nevarez Memorial Scholarship - Donate SIP Certified – Show your care for the people and planet   Sustainable Ag Expo – The premiere winegrowing event of the year Sustainable Winegrowing On-Demand (Western SARE) – Learn at your own pace Vineyard Team – Become a Member Get More Subscribe wherever you listen so you never miss an episode on the latest science and research with the Sustainable Winegrowing Podcast. Since 1994, Vineyard Team has been your resource for workshops and field demonstrations, research, and events dedicated to the stewardship of our natural resources. Learn more at www.vineyardteam.org.   Transcript [00:00:00] Craig Macmillan: Our guest today is Daniel Rath. He is a soil scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. And today we're going to be talking about regenerative agriculture. Thanks for being on the podcast, Daniel. [00:00:10] Daniel Rath: Thanks a lot, Craig. I'm excited to be here. [00:00:13] Craig Macmillan: We've been trying to find folks to talk about regenerative agriculture because it's a real buzzword right now. [00:00:18] And it's a buzzword in the vineyard industry, but it's not vineyard specific. This is applying to all sectors of agriculture and globally. This is a big concept now. So that's inspiring and drawing a lot of people, uh, in different directions. But I get different definitions of it. What regenerative agriculture? [00:00:37] Daniel Rath: Well, first of all, I'll say it's not really surprising that you get a different definition depending on who you talk to because, you know, regenerative agriculture really hasn't been like very specifically defined yet the way I think about it. Part of the reason it's so hard to define is that it's really more of a philosophy and an approach to land management. [00:00:59] And so, you know, it's taking into acknowledgement the fact that agricultural systems have this complexity. And instead of trying to reduce that complexity, we lean into it. We see what advantages we can get from it. It's a holistic approach. You know, it doesn't just necessarily focus on the environmental impacts, but what are the social impacts? [00:01:18] What are the economic impacts of agricultural systems? Looking at things like local food systems and connecting farmers to consumers, but also how do we increase soil health? How do we reduce pests and diseases? It's funny. You should bring it up now. The state of California. Just finished a process in of defining regenerative agriculture for their legislative effort. [00:01:40] Craig Macmillan: Oh [00:01:41] Daniel Rath: Yeah, there's a draft definition out there have been numerous listening sessions The next one is on august 22nd, but I was part of that committee that tried to like Capture this sort of like ephemeral philosophy and like nail it down without hopefully killing it. [00:01:57] Craig Macmillan: Uh, and to put a timestamp, the date of this interview is August of 2024. [00:02:03] So this is new to that point. We'll see how that develops from here. Which is pretty cool, but no, I was not aware of that. That's pretty, pretty interesting. What are some of the specific practices somebody might use? So, philosophically, I'm in alignment. I want to build and protect my soil. I want to protect my community. [00:02:20] I want to have healthier plants. What are some of the techniques that folks are using around the world to do this? [00:02:26] Daniel Rath: Well, I will answer your question with a saying that my PhD advisor used to tell me every time I walked into her office, which was that, you know, what is your goal? What is the question that you're trying to ask, right? [00:02:37] Part of the reason that regenerative agriculture does not have one set definition is that it's going to look very different. different depending on where you are. A regenerative agricultural system in a place that is facing a lot of restrictions on water, low soil organic matter, the practices you use there are going to look very different than say if you have regenerative agriculture in a place that has regular rainfall, has a lot of soil organic matter, very active soils. [00:03:02] I would say that some of the most commonly mentioned practices are things like integrating livestock into perennial systems, cover crops, crop rotation, increasing the diversity on farm systems, reducing tillage, basically all of these practices that increase soil health, because really increasing soil health is at the the core of what it means to sort of regenerate a plot of land. [00:03:29] But if you're talking about specific practices, you kind of have to think like, well, what am I trying to regenerate? What are the goals that I want to get out of it? One other interesting topic is the idea of reducing external inputs, not eliminating them entirely, but reducing dependence on things like fertilizers and pesticides, seeing how a that can result in cost savings for farmers, but also Relying on the natural complexity of the system to provide those benefits. [00:03:58] Craig Macmillan: Yeah, that's always been one of the tenants of sustainable farming is to reduce the number of off farm inputs and reduce the number of farm outputs other than the crop, and that includes things like pollution, erosion, whatever, um, and try to develop a system that's stable in and of itself. Um, and it sounds like there's some things that can contribute to that. [00:04:18] Um, what about composting? That's another popular topic. [00:04:21] Daniel Rath: Composting, I forgot to mention that composting really adding organic matter to the soil. A lot of the systems that we've developed over the last few decades are very focused on adding nitrogen, which is important. Nitrogen is a really big limiting nutrient, but we've learned that adding nitrogen on its own is not enough. [00:04:38] You have to add carbon in there. You have to add other micronutrients that might not be contained in your typical fertilizer mixture. And so yeah, adding compost is a really great way adding organic matter residue crop. [00:04:53] Craig Macmillan: Again, the inclusion of animals seems to be, um, pretty consistent across different definitions, including mobile cropping systems. [00:05:00] In permanent crops that can be a little tricky. So like in vineyards, I have heard of folks that were grazing goats and sheep in season for the most part. Folks will plant a cover crop in the winter and then maybe they'll come through with some sheep or some goats in the springtime. I guess my question is, when I read other things and they talk about having animals as part of the system, I see like herds of cattle, which are generating a lot of manure. [00:05:25] And I can go, yeah, I, I bet that's doing a lot, but your smaller ruminants, in your opinion, I mean, can they contribute enough in a, in a, a seasonal, uh, past to, to make a difference? [00:05:39] Daniel Rath: Yeah, this, that's a really good point. I think the short answer is, yeah, I think they do. And so the example you gave is, I think the one I would have used, right, is that planting cover crops in between these sort of like, vines that are there for a long time, and then using ruminants to terminate those cover crops and to convert it into manure and urine, which was a great source of nitrogen. [00:06:00] When I was at UC Davis doing my PhD, we had a couple experiments on sheep terminating cover crops and goats terminating cover crops. And you could see the benefits in the soil, as long as you had those like livestock ruminants being on the plot. [00:06:15] Craig Macmillan: That leads to another question. You know, I've got the philosophy now. [00:06:19] I believe in the philosophy. I believe that I can actually improve the soils. One of the things I've always been a little suspicious of with regenerative agriculture is the idea of regeneration. I have a hard time kind of making sense of that in my mind in agricultural systems because things are leaving. [00:06:36] And certain crops are not big miners. Wine grapes are kind of famous for not really mining the soil that much and they can grow in very poor soils Doesn't mean you don't want to build those soils, but if I'm looking to detect what we would call regeneration, what kinds of Variables might I be looking at and what are the kinds of things that I might actually be able to get some metrics on? [00:07:00] Where I can say yes, this program seems to be working This is making a difference or I'm not seeing the results that I would like Maybe I should make a shift and try something different [00:07:09] Daniel Rath: Yeah, that's also a really good question. So I think there are actually two really interesting questions in what you just said. [00:07:15] The first one is, what do you measure? And again, it depends on your question, but very often the things that we will measure will be things like soil organic matter, right? We will be looking at measurements such as nutrient balance. So how much nitrogen is soil's organic matter, what are the nitrate and phosphorus levels in the soil for wine grapes? [00:07:36] I know you don't want it to be like too fertile because it is good to stress those grapes out a little bit to get a high quality product. You look at things like drainage and water storage. If you see better infiltration on plots, if you don't see water ponding quite as much. One thing that is becoming more common is tracking microbial indicators, right? [00:07:56] And so part of the reason that we do that is that microbes are like early indicators. They will change faster than the soil organic matter content. And so they can give you an idea of where you're headed and whether or not it's a direction you want to be heading in. I can, you know, apply to stuff like pest and disease too. [00:08:15] Craig Macmillan: This is a great one because I've been working on this for the last couple of years. What am I looking for? I, uh, there's a bunch of different tests that you can do. There's a bunch of different things you can look at. If I'm trying to get a sense of what's happening with the cell microbiome, what kind of testing might I be interested in doing? [00:08:30] What kinds of things might I specifically be looking for? [00:08:34] Daniel Rath: There have been a lot of advances in the last, you know, decade or so looking at this. One of the biggest areas that there have been advancements is tracking the incidence of pests and diseases, right? And so, you know, that is a really good one. If you're worried or, you know, concerned about a specific pest, there are often really good methods to test for that. [00:08:52] You can also be looking at biological tests that look at functions of interest. So say your goal is to reduce nitrogen application on your plot. There are measurements that you can make of nitrogen release from organic matter by microbes and that will give you a really good idea or, you know, a fairly good idea of maybe how much nitrogen this soil is already supplying. [00:09:17] California is also really interested in this. So another thing, there's a soil biodiversity report that came out about a year ago in which the CDFA asked us this very question. They were like, if we were going to measure soil biology across California for a number of different purposes, what would we do? [00:09:32] We had 15 scientists that have really been working on this for a long time. We all sat down and like, how do we capture the thought process and thinking that goes into this? into selecting the right microbial indicator because there are a lot of them and they're not all easy to interpret. [00:09:47] Craig Macmillan: Are those recommendations out there now? [00:09:49] Daniel Rath: I would say the, the report is out and in the report we, you, we have a couple examples. We're really hoping that the California Department of Food and Ag will sort of expand on those recommendations for more like, sort of like a targeted approach. Really what we did is we used that nitrogen example as an example. [00:10:10] It's like this is how you would do it, but really the devil is in the details. What is the specific area you're looking at? What is like the question you're looking to answer? The biodiverse report has at least like the thought process, what are the things you should be looking for? [00:10:25] Craig Macmillan: So we've been talking about kind of like more short term. [00:10:27] What about long term? You have some experience, I believe, in long term agricultural research. Like, I think you did a study that was like a 25 year retrospective, if you will, of the health of a particular farm. In the long term, in the longer range, What kinds of benefits should we expect? We've talked about pest and disease resistance, maybe water status. [00:10:51] What kinds of slow changes might we be looking for that we might see that would give us some confidence that this is working? [00:10:58] Daniel Rath: Sure. I mean, this is an example of why long term experiments are so great because. They're the only really way for us to get at this question. But you can expect things like improved biodiversity on, um, especially above ground biodiversity, below ground biodiversity. [00:11:15] That is a process that takes a long time. You can see things like improved water storage, improved water infiltration. You can see You know, if you're talking about the ultimate long term metric resilience, right, how do our agricultural systems respond to the climate changes that are already occurring and, you know, building that resilience means relying on this like complex biological network that really sustains our plants right now. [00:11:46] Increased carbon and organic matter storage is another really good one. And so, you know, over time you see all of these environmental benefits and along with that comes social benefits. We see improved human health. We see improved connectivity between farms and the communities nearby. Improved sort of farm worker health and safety. [00:12:07] All of these things are a little bit longer term, but they are all one of some of the goals and some of the benefits we see from regenerative systems. [00:12:16] Craig Macmillan: I want to drop back to one of the practices because I've talked about this quite a bit with folks. I want to get your take on it. No till or minimal till. [00:12:24] Or, uh, I talked to one person that said, uh, avoid excessive tillage. And the question that came back was, what the heck is that? What's excessive? You know, what, if I drag the disc through here one time, is that excessive? And this may apply to other crops that you've worked with. What role does tillage have in this process, in these systems? [00:12:45] Because one school of thought that I'm familiar with is, okay, we grow these cover crops, we terminate them with sheep, it's great, but we may still want to incorporate that material into the soil. So that it breaks down and gets in there. Then there's another school of thought that says, No, don't do that. [00:13:03] Don't touch it. Leave it alone. Let the system do what it normally does. And then there's a third school of thought that's like, well, I can't do that forever. Floors get too bumpy. Um, things need to be reset. Or I need to plant cover crops. So I need to set a seed bed. And again, you can draw from other cropping systems on this. [00:13:21] What is your feelings about the effect of tillage on the soil microbiome and soil health discrimination? [00:13:26] Daniel Rath: No, no till has been a really hot topic for quite a while. It came about when the NRCS was first started looking to reduce the impacts of a dust bowl and realizing that tillage was over tillage was a major cause of that. [00:13:41] And so when you are looking at no tillage, there are very clear benefits. There's increased plant root presence, decreased erosion, better soil structure formation, a potential for better infiltration. But you have to wear that against the. benefits of tillage. I mean, it has very clear benefits too. It helps to keep weed and pest populations under control. [00:14:03] It makes it a little bit easier, especially in annual cropping systems for roots to establish. Like you said precisely, it's a better way for incorporating organic matter into the soil. My point of view is that I think tillage is a valuable tool in the farmer's toolbox, right? And that what is over tillage is going to really depend on where you are. [00:14:24] If you're on a slope, probably less tillage is better because again, you don't want that top soil to be washed off. If you're on sort of like a flat plain and you know, you know, you're tilling to establish a crop, then it's probably not a big deal to have one or two tillage passes, at least from the erosion standpoint. [00:14:41] What we do know is that no till has also been recommended as a way to increase soil carbon. There's still, I think, a little bit of back and forth on that. At least we have seen is that no till increases soil carbon at the top. Part of the soil really doesn't increase at the bottom. So it's more of a redistribution of carbon again There are really clear benefits to tillage and you know There's a reason that people have been doing it for a long time [00:15:07] Craig Macmillan: kind of what I'm hearing I think this is a really great message is it's another tool. [00:15:11] It's a tool that we don't have to throw away But it is one that we should think about how we use it. I've, I've actually started to think about tillage the same way I think about, uh, pesticides and fertilizers. Where it's, it's a question of what benefit am I going to get from this? Do I need to do it? [00:15:28] Are there other things that I could do? And then you put that all into your calculator in your brain and, and try to sort it out. And I've had some very interesting conversations as how different people kind of sorted those things out. So I think that's a great point. That leads me to another question that I just thought of. [00:15:42] And so the role of synthetic fertilizers, for instance. The synthetic fertilizers have been pointed to, and I think accurately so, as driving land degradation in many cases, especially the overuse of nitrate based fertilizers. You also have environmental impacts in terms of pollution, potentially. Is there a role for conventional fertilizers in regenerative agriculture? [00:16:05] Daniel Rath: Yeah, well, that's a real hot button topic there. Yeah. [00:16:10] Craig Macmillan: Hey, we go, we go for deep water on the show. Inquiring minds want to know. Hey, [00:16:16] Daniel Rath: that's, that's a real good question. Honestly, that's a question that I has been taking up a lot of my professional time recently. Like you said, it's not a secret. We are seeing a lot of negative environmental impacts from Over application of fertilizers that includes nitrate pollution in groundwater that applies to pesticides as well. [00:16:36] You know neonic pesticides have had major problems with insect populations. I think that exactly What you said you need to sort of weigh the costs and benefits Of these like particular practices and you know In my work in my phd talking to farmers the sort of farmer calculus that occurs in like You know, in the minds of the folks that I work with is so complex. [00:17:00] There are so many factors that you have to balance. One thing to be aware of is that we are applying too much nitrogen fertilizer now, and that's pretty clear from like the negative environmental impacts that we've seen. And so it's less of an idea of like. Like how do we eliminate nitrogen fertilizer and more like how do we make sure that that fertilizer gets into the plant? [00:17:23] You know, how do we match that fertilizer application to what the plant actually needs instead of over applying, right? How do we keep it on the plot? Because it is expensive. No one wants it to be running off into the environment, [00:17:36] Craig Macmillan: right? [00:17:37] Daniel Rath: One of the things that has really come across to us is when we talk to folks about nitrogen fertilizer application, there are yield benefits, but very often it's also a risk management strategy. [00:17:50] You want to apply enough nitrogen fertilizer so that if conditions are ideal, you can take advantage of them. Really and truly, there have got to be better, less environmentally intensive solutions. impactful risk management strategies. You know, that includes looking at the way that we incentivize crops, looking at the way that we handle crop insurance, looking at the crop choices. [00:18:13] If you're in a area that has a lot of potential for agricultural runoff, it may be better to grow crops that do not require as much nitrogen, corn is very greedy, or to put systems in place that reduce that nitrogen runoff, cover cropping, riparian buffers, All of these things are like great ideas to get to the underlying goal, which is reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizer. [00:18:39] Craig Macmillan: That's perfect. Gosh, we just keep getting more variables, don't we? [00:18:42] Daniel Rath: Oh my gosh, I assure you that's [00:18:46] Craig Macmillan: And speaking of more variables, I want to switch topics now. This is great, background graded by some regenerative agriculture. I know that I now have a better sense of what the philosophy and the practices are. [00:18:56] However, you've also worked in the area of soil metagenomics and metagenomes. And this has come up in other interviews that I've done around soil health with soil microbiologists. What is soil microgenomics and where are we at and where are we going and what can we do with this and what's all the exciting stuff coming down the pipeline? [00:19:19] But first of all, what, what is it? [00:19:21] Daniel Rath: When you talk about soil metagenomics, in a teaspoon of soil, I'm sure you've heard the statistics somewhere, right? In a teaspoon of soil, there's like a billion microbes and like so much fungal hyphae. And inside each one of those cells is DNA. That are basically the instructions for life for those different cells. [00:19:40] What we do in soil metagenomics is that you extract the DNA from a soil sample. And then the most complex, insane puzzle you've ever seen. We try to reassemble them, right? Right. And so like that is only possible because of the advances we've made in computing over the last few decades. And I get, you know, the national labs have really like pushes forward. [00:20:03] You need a really powerful supercomputer to do it. Once you've done that, you have this sort of unprecedented ability to glimpse what is happening in the soil at a scale that we've never been able to before. And so that's part of the reason that people are really excited about it is because it gives us a window into like this. [00:20:24] previously unknown black box of how microbes work and interact in the soil. I worked on that during my PhD at UC Davis, looking at like how metagenomes changed in farming systems over 25 years. [00:20:37] Craig Macmillan: So I have always been looking for the work that I do, looking for what are the variables that I can measure and what's going to give me a number that's going to tell me what's going on. [00:20:46] At one point I hit upon soil respiration, and I was talking to a soil ecologist and she said, well that's fine, but that tells you how much life is there, but it doesn't tell you whether it's good guys or bad guys. And then dove in to a whole nother level of, Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about, oh yeah, you're right. [00:21:05] Oh, and then those guys prey on those guys, and then this happens over here. Oh wow, yeah, you're right. And then I got kind of hooked on the um, The Haney test, which is, I think, kind of falling out of fashion now, which again, people were throwing rocks at that, you know, and I think that when Haney first came up with that, that was something, it was like, we need something, and it would prove to be useful, I think, but I don't think that's as popular or gives us the kind of dimension that we really need anymore, at least that's what I'm told. [00:21:34] With metagenomics, we're going to be able to tell not simply quantities, but we're going to be able to tell possibly down to the level of genus, maybe even species of who's, who's down there, which could be really, really important because like pseudomonas, for instance, there's certain pseudomonas that are, um, pathogenic and there's others that are beneficial. [00:21:56] And so we kind of need to figure out who's who and what's what is, is that on the horizon? Maybe it's 10 years out or more, but is that on the horizon? [00:22:04] Daniel Rath: Probably a little further out than that. A [00:22:06] Craig Macmillan: little further out? Okay. [00:22:07] Daniel Rath: I'll try and give you an example here. So, one of the things that we get when we pull out all this DNA is we get sort of relative abundances of different types of organisms, right? [00:22:18] It's sometimes quite difficult to get to the absolute abundance of organisms because We're really looking at, like, proportions of DNA, but that doesn't really tell you, like, are there, like, massive amounts of this organism present in the soil. You just have a relative idea. When it comes to metagenomics, there's a lot of promise in being able to say, Oh, look, we've seen these genes that, like, allow you to fix nitrogen. [00:22:43] And we found these genes that are associated with these, like, pests. And that's a really good idea, a really good indicator of, like, But there's another level to it. And that's really, I think what one of the like exciting parts is, is that it's not just the genetic potential that matters. It's the interactions between organisms that is quite hard to pull out. [00:23:05] So to your example, you could have pseudomonas, you could have quite high levels of pseudomonas. Do you have a. predator that keeps those pseudomonas populations under control, right? Because if you do, then you might not be seeing a lot of disease, like presence in the soil, even though you have like relatively high amounts of it. [00:23:25] And so understanding these interactions is sort of the next level in actually getting practical, actionable information out of these metagenomes. And we're, we're still. Teasing that apart. So really, when I talk about metagenomes, it's about potential. What is the potential for things to happen? But it does not actually mean that is what is going to happen. [00:23:46] Craig Macmillan: Right, exactly. And so the commercialization of this technology is quite a ways out. [00:23:51] Daniel Rath: Yeah. I mean, there are companies that are working on it right now. Again, this, it's a, this innovation is really, we're going to need to like be iterating towards success here, but really a lot more sort of research and work is required, especially on these interactions, thinking about like how they fit together. [00:24:10] And I personally think that it's a useful indicator. I've given a talk on these like. Soil test before the real power hard part comes when you're trying to interpret right when you have a scale that says like based on these abundances There's X percent chance that you will have a disease or X percent chance that you will be able to cycle nitrogen better That's really hard to like say at this point in my opinion, [00:24:35] Craig Macmillan: right? [00:24:35] Right. Well, at least we're moving in the right direction. I think [00:24:37] Daniel Rath: we absolutely are and honestly The, the best thing to compare metagenome test is your own soil five years ago. It gives you an unprecedented look into how your soil has changed and progressed depending on whatever practices you've applied. [00:24:51] Craig Macmillan: Right, right. Going back to regenerative agriculture, is there one thing, piece of advice, idea, one thing that you would like growers to take away on this topic? [00:25:02] Daniel Rath: Yeah, I think that one main thing is that this is not just about one specific environmental impact. This is about thinking about how we farm, how we grow food, what is our relationship To both farm ecosystems and agricultural ecosystems. [00:25:21] You know, I think there's this idea that natural ecosystems and agricultural ecosystems, they cannot coexist. And I think that over time we're starting to see that maybe that's not true. We can encourage biodiversity. We can encourage sort of these complex natural processes on farms. And indeed they make the farms more resilient. [00:25:41] more productive, we get more benefits from that. And so just in a way that like natural ecosystems evolve, I think that farming systems are also evolving and growing. And to us, regenerative agriculture is about bringing all farmers, no matter where they are, along on this journey towards sort of more sustainable, environmentally safe agro ecosystems. [00:26:05] Craig Macmillan: That's exactly the word I was going to use, is uh, is we think more about an agroecosystem as part of a much larger system, um, which is what ecology is kind of all about. We can look at the ecology of a pond, but then we can also look at what role that pond plays in the forest, and we can look at how the forest plays in the landscape and we can just keep going depending on what level you want to do it at. [00:26:27] And I think looking at our farms as part of a larger ecological system and an ecological system in and of itself also I think is a huge philosophical move. Absolutely right. Where can people find out more about you? [00:26:39] Daniel Rath: The NRDC website is a great place to start. We have a number of different resources. We published a report on regenerative agriculture where we interviewed farmers from across the U S at least for California specific stuff. [00:26:50] The California department of food and agriculture, again, is, has this regenerative agriculture definition process that's being carried out. As of this date in August, 2024, I also have a personal website that I update infrequently. [00:27:04] Craig Macmillan: Well, there's something on there. Yeah. So, yeah, and if you can share those links with us, that would be fantastic. [00:27:10] Our guest today has been Daniel Rath. He is a soil scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thanks for being on the podcast, Daniel. [00:27:18] Daniel Rath: Hey, absolutely. It's been quite a pleasure, Craig.   Nearly perfect transcription by Descript

Part of the Building Community Resilience Series at The New School "Resilience" is an essential part of individual and societal response and preparation these days, yet it's become a bit of a "buzz word." What does it mean from the perspective of someone who's been helping prepare groups for "resilience" since before the word was trendy? How do we mentor others in this idea and how do we sustain a sense of hope? Join us for a unique conversation on resilience, with Michael Fischer, a volunteer for multiple organizations, amateur radio guru K6MLF, formerly an environmental executive and consultant, philanthropic director, and city planner. Michael talks with long time TNS Audio and Video Producer, and first time TNS Host, Ken Adams from atop Mount Barnabe in West Marin at the historic Dickson Fire Lookout. Michael Fischer: Michael Fischer has volunteered for decades in the service of local organizations and groups that either support  or foster community resilience or community histories and traditions, like the Marin Amateur Radio Society, Marin County Sheriff's RACES, Mill Valley CERT, Marin County Fire Department Fire Lookout, and many others. Professionally, Michael has served as an Environmental Consultant, Sr. Fellow and Program Officer/Director at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Executive Officer at the California Coastal Conservancy, Senior Consultant at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, and many years years as an environmental policy consultant and urban planner. Michael likes to be known these days as "Student, saunterer, lover of poetry and music at: Retired For Good" Ken Adams: Ken Adams is a long time TNS audio and video producer who has recorded, edited, mixed, live streamed and podcasted our conversations since 2007. Ken is a long time audio/recording engineer, singer, voice and theatrical actor, songwriter and wrote music for commercials. Ken is a licensed amateur radio operator as well, radio lead for the SGVERG (San Geronimo Valley Emergency Readiness Group), and a MCFD Fire Lookout volunteer as well. Ken lives in West Marin with his wife and two kids and loves cooking and mountain biking through the hills of the San Geronimo Valley. Find out more about The New School at Commonweal on our website: tns.commonweal.org. And like/follow our Soundcloud channel for more great podcasts.

Should we turn California trees into wood pellets to be burned in foreign power plants? That's the proposal being brought forward by Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR), a nonprofit organization formed by Rural County Representatives of California and Golden State Finance Authority. GSNR has just released their draft environmental impact report for the project, which proposed two wood pellet factories (one in Lassen County and another in Tuolumne) that will draw biomass from roughly a 100 mile radius around the plant. Those factories will turn woody biomass into pellets, which will be shipped by rail to Stockton where the pellets will be loaded onto ocean-going ships to be delivered, likely to foreign power plants where they will be burned for energy. What's Humboldt's connection? Humboldt County's own Supervisor Rex Bohn sits on the Board of Directors for GSNR and biomass from Humboldt may end up be turned into wood pellets.This proposal has drawn concern from environmental groups worried about the greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and impacts to forest health from the project. Nick Joslin of the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center and Rita Vaughn Frost of the Natural Resources Defense Council join the show to discuss their concerns with the project.Support the show

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Starbucks Corp. v McKinney.      In this case, the court considered this issue: What test must courts use to evaluate requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when considering the NLRB's request for a preliminary injunction under §10( j), district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Section 10( j) authorizes a federal district court “to grant . . . such temporary relief . empowers courts to grant equitable relief, there is a strong presumption that courts will exercise that authority in a manner consistent with traditional principles of equity. For preliminary injunctions, the four criteria identified in Winter encompass the relevant equitable principles. Nothing in §10( j) displaces the presumption that those traditional principles govern.  The traditional rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” “These commonplace considerations applicable to cases in which injunctions are sought in the federal courts reflect a ‘practice with a background of several hundred years of history.' ” When interpreting a statute that authorizes federal courts to grant preliminary injunctions, the Court “does not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles.” Absent a clear command from Congress, then, courts must adhere to the traditional four-factor test articulated in Winter. Section 10( j)'s statutory directive to grant injunctive relief when the district court “deems” it “just and proper” does not jettison the normal equitable rules; it simply invokes the discretion that courts have traditionally exercised when faced with requests for equitable relief. Furthermore, §10( j)'s text bears no resemblance to the language that Congress has employed when it has altered the normal equitable rules.  The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

We get a question submitted via TikTok: "After Chevron has been overturned, does that mean we can delete our diesel trucks?" This question touches on a significant legal decision and its potential impact on diesel truck owners and the trucking industry at large.To give you a bit of background, the Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that originated from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The doctrine essentially states that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes that they administer. This has allowed agencies considerable leeway in creating and enforcing regulations.Recently, a decision has been made to overturn Chevron deference, which has raised questions about the future of many regulations, including those affecting diesel trucks. Specifically, regulations introduced during the Obama era mandated that diesel trucks include various emissions control technologies, such as diesel emissions fluid (DEF) systems. These regulations have been a point of contention, with many arguing that they add unnecessary costs and complications for truck owners and operators.What does overturning of Chevron deference means for these diesel emissions regulations? While the decision is significant, it is unlikely to lead to an immediate rollback of existing regulations. Regulations that have been in place since 2008 are deeply embedded in the industry, and changing them would require substantial legislative or executive action.Many truck enthusiasts and operators have resorted to "deleting" their trucks, removing emissions control systems to improve performance and reduce costs. However, this practice is technically illegal under current regulations, and the recent legal changes do not alter this fact.While the overturning of Chevron deference may curb the power of administrative agencies moving forward, existing regulations are likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

One of Lansing's recent policy battles involves new tax exemptions for data centers, the computer system warehouses for storing and processing data. Derrell Slaughter of the Natural Resources Defense Council explains how the topic unexpectedly became one of environmentalists biggest concerns this year (1:27).  MIRS meets Joseph Erhardt, the acting director of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association. He says Senate bills updating how drivers pay per-vehicle fees to the association will force insurance costs to skyrocket (24:35).  Additionally, MIRS talks to high school seniors Saachi Rajgarhia and Garrett Gruner, the two youth governors of the YMCA Youth in Government program. They'll be signing and vetoing bills this year as part of a mock legislative system (45:11). 

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. Part II opens with an in-depth discussion of the major questions doctrine (which bars agencies from resolving questions of great economic and political significance without clear statutory authority), how it has evolved, and its interaction with Chevron deference. Our experts offer predictions as to the likely role of the major questions doctrine in post-Chevron jurisprudence, and touch on the non-delegation doctrine (which prevents Congress from delegating legislative power). We also refer to the effects of another recent Supreme Court decision, Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which expands the time during which entities new to an industry may challenge longstanding agency rules. We then consider the practical effects of the Loper Bright and Corner Post decisions on pending and future litigation. Partners Richard Andreano and John Culhane discuss concrete examples of cases currently progressing through the courts that already are evidencing the effects of Loper Bright, and ways in which arguments now are being articulated or might be articulated in litigation challenging a number of regulatory rules and interpretations in the absence of Chevron deference. We proceed to explore other significant topics including the validity of prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that were based exclusively on the Chevron doctrine. Our panel then opines on whether Loper Bright, both in its entirety and as to certain of its specific constituent elements, is “good” or “bad” for the consumer financial services industry and for regulated entities in general. In conclusion, Mr. Andreano cites concerns about how courts may apply alternative deference guidance that remains in place (including Skidmore deference, discussed in Part I of this podcast), and Mr. Culhane expresses hope that the outcome in Loper Bright might move agencies to engage in more thorough, thoughtful, and precise analysis in the rulemaking process.

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a statute if the statute was ambiguous regarding, or simply did not address, the issue before the court, as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. In Part I, we first review the history of judicial deference to agency interpretations in American courts throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the advent of Chevron deference.  We then discuss post-Chevron developments, including shifts in judicial and political views of the role courts should play in interpretation of agency action. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the majority opinion in Loper Bright, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, including its reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate Chevron deference and the opinion's numerous ambiguities that result in a “very, very fuzzy” outcome, leaving regulated industries facing uncertainty as to whether or not courts will uphold agency rules. We then explore other topics including the majority opinion's endorsement of an approach courts should take to review agency actions as described in a 1940's case, Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; what deference may or may not be given to agency policy-making and fact-finding in light of Loper Bright; and the divergent views of some legal scholars who suggest that many courts will continue to give broad deference to agency views notwithstanding Loper Bright.

Join us for an in-depth exploration of Professor Cass Sunstein's latest work, Campus Free Speech (Harvard University Press, September 2024).  Together, we'll examine the book's intriguing take on free speech in academic spaces and the broader implications for constitutional interpretation. Professor Sunstein also delves into the exercise of administrative power, with timely discussions on COVID-era authority and the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Gain unique insights from Sunstein on how the Constitution remains a guiding force for the American public in navigating modern challenges. Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. In 2018, he received the Holberg Prize from the government of Norway, sometimes described as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for law and the humanities. In 2020, the World Health Organization appointed him as Chair of its technical advisory group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and after that, he served on the President's Review Board on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and on the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Board. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has advised officials at the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Bank, and many nations on issues of law and public policy. He serves as an adviser to the Behavioural Insights Team in the United Kingdom. Professor Sunstein is author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books, including Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008), Simpler: The Future of Government (2013), The Ethics of Influence (2015), #Republic (2017), Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide (2017), The Cost-Benefit Revolution (2018), On Freedom (2019), Conformity (2019), How Change Happens (2019), and Too Much Information (2020). He is now working on a variety of projects involving the regulatory state, “sludge” (defined to include paperwork and similar burdens), fake news, and freedom of speech. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Join us for an in-depth exploration of Professor Cass Sunstein's latest work, Campus Free Speech (Harvard University Press, September 2024).  Together, we'll examine the book's intriguing take on free speech in academic spaces and the broader implications for constitutional interpretation. Professor Sunstein also delves into the exercise of administrative power, with timely discussions on COVID-era authority and the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Gain unique insights from Sunstein on how the Constitution remains a guiding force for the American public in navigating modern challenges. Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. In 2018, he received the Holberg Prize from the government of Norway, sometimes described as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for law and the humanities. In 2020, the World Health Organization appointed him as Chair of its technical advisory group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and after that, he served on the President's Review Board on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and on the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Board. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has advised officials at the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Bank, and many nations on issues of law and public policy. He serves as an adviser to the Behavioural Insights Team in the United Kingdom. Professor Sunstein is author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books, including Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008), Simpler: The Future of Government (2013), The Ethics of Influence (2015), #Republic (2017), Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide (2017), The Cost-Benefit Revolution (2018), On Freedom (2019), Conformity (2019), How Change Happens (2019), and Too Much Information (2020). He is now working on a variety of projects involving the regulatory state, “sludge” (defined to include paperwork and similar burdens), fake news, and freedom of speech. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The Honorable Justice Elspeth B Cypher (Retired) left her appointment on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to become the most-interviewed yet least-heard Heterodorx guest. Cypher discusses the Biden administrations attempts to replace sex with gender in Title IX, and the efforts of 20+ states and Moms for Liberty to push back. We also cover women in Afghanistan, the Chevron Doctrine, federal money held over foster care, Tickle vs. Giggle, Tennessee vs Cardona, stays, staying stays, appeals, districts, the MA Supreme Court-to-TERF pipeline, faith in the judicial system, why pi does not equal 3 in Indiana, making unpopular decisions as a judge, retroactively transing Ruth “Theyder” Ginsburg, biological height, masculinity, fighting oppression with more oppression, flexibility vs functionality of law, hijacking compassion, and boobs. Cori gives Elspeth his Trans Blessing but doesn't have enough testosterone to give Nina his Andro-Blessing, proving once again there is no justice.  Links: The Alabama case Cori was talking about: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202211707.2.pdf scold's bridle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle WoLF: https://womensliberationfront.org/ Chevron Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-doctrine-what-you-need-know Tickle vs. Giggle (Australia): https://quillette.com/2024/08/27/tickle-vs-giggle/ TN vs Cardona: https://adfmedia.org/case/state-tennessee-v-cardona Fight the Bears: https://indamidle.substack.com/p/fight-the-bears Email Judge TERF: elspeth@womensliberationfront.org --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/heterodorx/support

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson and Partner Kelly Dunbar discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the recent decision that overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the initial 1984 decision, the Court determined that when an agency is tasked with enforcing an ambiguous statute with more than one reasonable interpretation, a court reviewing the agency's action must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This latest decision requires courts to make those interpretations instead, with potentially far-reaching effects on agencies across the country. Dawson and Dunbar share the original intent of Chevron and how it came to form a bedrock of administrative law. Dunbar also explains why the Court found it necessary to overturn the decision after 40 years and the unanswered questions left in the wake of the case. Dawson also questions the impact the case will have on both the public and private sector, and specifically if Congress will shift how it legislates in order to avoid potential ambiguity. This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Department of State v. Muñoz.

Let's look at two recent Supreme Court cases impacting the role and powers of federal regulators. After decades of accepted areas of law that deferred to federal regulators, we are witnessing a shakeup through rulings on the so-called Chevron Deference and the Corner Post decision. How will these landmark rulings change the power held by agencies?  The modern regulatory state of the federal governments evolved after the Great Depression during the New Deal to tighten lax oversight blamed for many elements that led to the Depression. As new agencies were created, regulators came to enforce developing legislation, such as the Securities Exchange Act and labor rules. Seventy plus years later, we have our alphabet soup of federal agencies. Expect a slew of new challenges and litigation to follow. “It is impossible to overstate what a complete wreck this is going to make of everything,” says guest and associate professor of administrative law Gwendolyn Savitz, calling the effect of the rulings “calamitous.” How can legislators put the toothpaste back in the tube? “Chevron's a big deal, it's reversal's a big deal,” adds guest and regulatory law veteran Paul Weiland. If you're involved in regulatory law, you can't miss this episode. Resources: “Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance of New Evidence and Changed Circumstances,” by Gwendolyn Savitz Administrative Procedures Act, Cornell Law School “Loper Bright, Skidmore, and the Gravitational Pull of Past Agency Interpretations,” Yale Journal of Regulation  Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, via Justia Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, SCOTUSblog Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SCOTUSblog Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA “The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference – What Now?” NRDC American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comOne of the most consequential developments of the last Supreme Court Term was the overruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the 40-year-old precedent directing courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It came about through two cases: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, argued by Roman Martinez, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, argued by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement (a past podcast guest).Today I'm pleased to be joined by Roman Martinez. One of the leading Supreme Court advocates of his generation, Martinez, 45, has argued 14 cases before the Court. But none has been as consequential—or controversial—as the aptly named Relentless.How does Martinez respond to claims that Relentless will have relentlessly negative consequences for American society? We explore the implications of the overturning of Chevron—along with Martinez's clerkships for then-Judge Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, his thoughts on the old versus new SCOTUS argument formats, his style as a Supreme Court advocate, and his “secret weapon” in preparing for high-court appearances—in the latest Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Roman Martinez bio, Latham & Watkins* Roman Martinez profile, Chambers and Partners* 40 Under 40: Roman Martinez, Washington Business JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

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. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court's term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v  Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Today we focus on the Soviet nuclear program with Thomas Cochran. Tom directed nuclear disarmament projects at the Natural Resources Defense Council from 1973 until his retirement in 2016. He has received numerous awards for his work on nuclear disarmament, including the public service award from the Federation of American Scientists and the Szilard Award from the American Physical Society, both in 1987. Tom was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1989, and, due to his work, the Natural Resources Defense Council received the AAAS Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award that same year. Today we discuss the Soviet nuclear weapons program, from Stalin finding out about the bomb to Gorbachev's unilateral test moratorium. Tom played key roles in the seismic monitoring experiment, visits by US Congressional delegations to sensitive Soviet military installations, the Black Sea experiment, and other adventures in nuclear de-escalation.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 40-year precedent established in the landmark 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.  The precedent, commonly referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine,” gave federal agencies considerable discretion to interpret laws passed by Congress when implementing regulations and policy. But with the court's new ruling, federal agencies no longer have the final say on how laws are interpreted. Instead, the judiciary will hold that power.  So, how will the new ruling impact energy policy and environmental regulation? What are both proponents and opponents saying about the court's decision? And what does this mean more broadly for the modern administrative state?  This week host Bill Loveless talks with Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead about the implications of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine. Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. From 2012 to 2018, he was the chair of the faculty of Columbia University's Earth Institute. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades. Jeff is a partner and co-chair of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell LLP. From 2001 to 2005, he served as the assistant administrator for air and radiation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This week we talk about the APA, the Supreme Court, and Marbury v. Madison.We also discuss the Chevron Doctrine, government agencies, and the administrative state.Recommended Book: A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach WeinersmithTranscriptThe Supreme Court's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision was pivotal to US legal theory and practice because it established the concept of judicial review, which essentially said that US courts could assess laws passed through the typical legislative system, through Congress, and, if they determined those laws were unconstitutional, strike them down.This was a huge rewiring of the US government, as it gave a substantial amount of new power to the court system, and it provided a new check on the legislative system that recentered the Constitution as the source of all law; if the judges decided new laws didn't line up with that original Constitutional intent, according to their interpretation of said intent, the new laws would be a no-go.This is true of statutes that declare policy, as well, which are generally part of the law-making process, and also help shape regulations, guidelines, and other things of that nature—the fuzzier stuff that goes on to effect things, even when some of those fuzzy statements and implications aren't formalized in law, yet.So any and all of this stuff that Congress decides on could, at some point, be looked into by the US court system, and that system can say, nope, that doesn't line up with what's in the Constitution—it's not Constitutional—and that means the Constitution, following Marbury v. Madison, became a lot more of a legal reality in the country, rather than just a collection of principles and ideals, which is how some legislators and legal scholars thought of it before this ruling.Within this same entwined governmental/legal system, Congress sometimes delegates policy decision-making powers to US agencies, allowing them to make legal decisions in cases where Congress passes a law that it is some way ambiguous—saying that there need to be emissions standards on cars, for instance, but leaving the task of coming up with those standards to the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.This delegation ability was reinforced by a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, today usually referred to as "Chevron" or the "Chevron decision," the justices unanimously deciding against the DC judicial circuit's ability to set government policy, reminding those justices that judges are unelected officials and thus shouldn't be making law, and that when Congress isn't specific enough in their lawmaking, this can represent an implicit desire for the agencies in charge of implementing the relevant laws in the real world to figure out the specifics for themselves; after all, they would probably know better how to do so than a bunch of lawmakers who are not experts on the subject matter in question.That case also limited the US court system's ability to review an agency's interpretation of the law, which in that specific case meant that judges shouldn't have the right to look into how US agencies decide to do things, willy-nilly, just because they don't like the outcome.Instead, they have to adhere to what has become known as the Chevron Doctrine or Chevron Deference, which says, first, the judges have to decide if Congress was clear on the matter—and if so, they go with what Congress said, no questions asked. If Congress was unclear on something, though, then they have to decide if the agency in charge of executing Congress' decision has made reasonable and permissible decisions on that implementation; and if the answer is yes in both cases, the court must accept the agency's decision on the matter.If not, though, then the court can step in and make some kind of judgement; but it's a fairly ponderous process to get to that point, because of this doctrine, and they will almost always defer to the decision made by the relevant agency, because of that 1980s-era court case.The Chevron decision is generally considered to be one of the most formative in modern case-law because it empowered US agencies with all sorts of responsibilities and rights they wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed.The Chevron case, itself, was predicated on a disagreement about the 1963 Clean Air Act, which failed to specifically define what "source" meant, in terms of emitted pollutants; Congress didn't specify. And this ambiguity led to a clarification in 1981, by then-President Reagan's EPA, that allowed companies to bypass the Act's procedures by building-out new, highly polluting components to their plants and factories, as long as they also modified other aspects of those plants and factories in such a way that emissions were reduced.An environmentalist advocacy group challenged this new definition, which amounted to a loophole that allowed companies to get around otherwise sterner emissions rules, and that's how we got the Chevron court case.What I'd like to talk about today is a recent, successful challenge to that Chevron ruling, and what it might mean for the powerful regulatory state that emerged in the US in the wake of that decision.—On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court announced their decision in a case that was originally argued in January of the same year—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, along with a companion case on a connected matter, Relentless Inc v. Department of Commerce—the Court's decision being that the Chevron deference, which says agencies can define fuzziness left in law by Congress, conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which itself says the US court system has oversight powers when it comes to all agency actions.The long and short of this decision—which was made along what are generally considered to be ideological lines within the court, the more conservative 6 justices ruling against the Chevron doctrine, the 3 more liberal justices ruling to keeping it—is that federal agencies will now have far less wiggle-room and legally backed authority when it comes to the laws and policies they enforce.And while the court also said this doesn't immediately strip prior judgements of their impact and consequences, it does mean—according to most experts who have responded to and analyzed to this ruling, at least—that we're likely to see a wave of lawsuits against agencies that have done things or refined regulations in a way that individuals or companies didn't like, which could amount to the same thing within the next couple of years: many such regulations being done away with, those agencies becoming husks of their former selves because their capabilities will be pruned back significantly.This is being seen as a victory by mostly conservative activists and lawmakers who are keen to see the regulatory components of the US government shrunk, their powers and funding depleted as a much as possible, doing away with what they sometimes derisively call the "administrative state," which they consider to be a limit on the free market and in some cases their own powers within politics and the economy.And among many other regulations, thousands of them, by some estimates, this could impact the government's ability to regulate environmental pollution, safety measures for cars and airplanes, workers' rights and health considerations, and even somewhat more wonky things like net neutrality and the legality or illegality of very specific aspects of the e-cigarette and crypto industries.For decades, these regulations have been to greater and lesser degrees interpreted—in their specifics, at least—by regulatory bodies like the FDA, the FCC, the EPA, and other such agencies. Congress has mapped out the broad strokes, leaving the details for the relevant agencies to sort out, because they knew this ruling would give those agencies the power to do so.So those laws passed in this way by a Congress that knew this was how things worked, legally, will suddenly find themselves incredibly challengeable, the legal basis of their specifics now based on flimsy justifications that the court no longer supports.These policies won't immediately disappear, then, but all of them, in their details and as a whole, are now more vulnerable to lawsuits from anyone who wants to bring them, and those who bring them will likely win, because the court system has taken away the protections those agency powers formerly leaned-upon.Consequently, there are fresh concerns from folks working in environmental spaces, those attempting to incentivize the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, and those who are trying to protect workers' rights, that they could soon be tied up in endless court cases, many aspects of the legal understanding they've worked in accordance with other the past four decades pulled out from under them—their capacity to enforce anything not spelled out in detail by congress, which is very little because congress has gotten used to leaving that to them, in many cases, dramatically reduced.There are parallel concerns that standards that have made the US market relatively trustworthy, compared to other global marketplaces, at least, in terms of the safety of foods and medicines and all sorts of other products, might be diminished, leading to a bunch of new safety challenges, but also a demotion of American goods on the global market, because fewer sturdy regulations, at least in the short-term, could lead to more rip-offs and fakes, lower-quality items subbed in for higher-quality ones, and a bunch of risky, and even dangerous new products and services hitting the market, because these agencies are suddenly less empowered to check them out before approving them.One of the larger concerns, especially amongst folks on the political left in the US, is the impact this could have on health care.The Affordable Care Act, which provides reduced-cost insurance plans to folks who make less than a set amount of income, is enabled by a huge jumble of regulations that determine how things are paid for, who can and must participate—citizens and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and so on—and how everything fits together, ensuring Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA can continue to function, despite relying upon often arcane methods and cost overruns.The US Treasury and IRS, too, rely heavily on regulatory powers to draft new rules and enforce the tax code, which allows for the management of money throughout government agencies and other bodies, but which also helps the government develop and deploy sticks and carrots throughout its portfolio of laws, acts, and policy-based nudges.The deployment of clean energy tax credits and incentives to help push solar and wind power development, and to encourage the construction of chip-making facilities on US soil, for instance, are all reliant on the ability to divvy out those credits, to decide how big they should be, and to determine who should get them, based on what criteria.The general outline of most of these programs is still on solid ground, because Congress decides that sort of thing, even today, but so many specific details and numbers and implementation strategies are left to agencies, and though it's possible to shore those up, Congress stepping in to vote on and pass new details into law, it will take time to do that, and especially in highly competitive spaces like chip-making, and arguably time-sensitive spaces like those related to healthcare and climate change, a gap in implementation and legality could be incredibly meaningful, and even devastating to some of these projects and their outcomes.In addition to having grown accustomed to being able to leave those sorts of details to agencies, which has impacted how they make law, the US Congress, too, has become highly polarized and at times somewhat stagnant, moving sluggishly on controversial areas, in particular, one side or the other bogging down even debate about things they don't like, rather than working with the other side to find a middle-ground they can agree upon.So while many lawmakers may want to move fast to fill in some of these gaps that have suddenly appeared across US law and capability, that desire may be held up by the reality of US politics at the moment, and systems that are often weighed-down by the people who operate them, and the systems meant to keep them ticking along, but which sometimes do the opposite.One way of looking at all this—through the lens of those who generally support this decision—is that this ruling could force Congress to get more specific in its laws, and in the meantime it could reduce the amount of bloat that can accumulate within any regulatory system; some of the sluggishness in getting new products to market, building-out new infrastructure, and passing new laws could actually be reduced, streamlining processes that currently, arguably, take too long, cost too much, and provide little benefit, all because these agencies have developed too many hoops to jump through and piles of paperwork to fill out.Another way of looking at it, from the perspective of those who generally decry this outcome, is that this will lead to a huge shock, bordering on chaos, throughout the US legal and governmental system, will do away with all sorts of government supports, leaving us with fewer protections and filters that help keep people safe, and which keep businesses from abusing their positions of power, and that it puts more power in the hands of judges, who—especially at the very top, within the Supreme Court, which made this decision—are usually put into their positions by whomever happens to be in power, occupying the presidency, when one of their predecessors retires or dies. Which is why there's such a huge 6 to 3 imbalance between conservative and liberal justices in the Supreme Court at the moment, that imbalance unlikely to go away any time soon, because those unelected positions are for life; though Republicans during the Trump administration also made it a priority to fill lower rungs of the justice system with ideological fellow travelers, so the justice system in the US, broadly, is more conservative than it has historically been, at this particular moment.There's a chance, then, that this ruling could lead to a period of reduced regulatory bloat, which could help some industries and governments cruise forward with things they've long wanted to do, but have been unable to make progress on because of all the bureaucracy standing between them and their intended goals. There's also a chance this could shake the foundations of some of the agencies that have been essentially captured by the industries they're meant to regulate, messing with those relationships in a way that's arguably better for citizens and institutions, and worse for the businesses that lobbied their way into informal regulatory power over themselves.On the other hand, it could also be that progress on much of anything will be almost impossible until these laws can be revisited and made more specific at the Congressional level, because there will be so many court challenges to everything, from all sides, that the US justice system will have a full dance card for years just sorting out the basics, and everyone will be too afraid to proceed with anything in the meantime, lest they make investments that ultimately turn out to be illegal.Notably, the Supreme Court decision in this case did say that Congress could still delegate decision-making powers to federal agencies: they just have to specifically say that's what they're doing, rather than leaving things fuzzy and assuming that will be implied. So we may also see a brief period of relative chaos, followed by basically more of the same, everything going back to how it is today because Congress makes sure to include a line of text in every law they pass that specifies that delegatory intent.One more major consideration here is that the court system, and especially the Supreme Court up at the top of the pecking order, is only so big, and already often moves at a relatively sluggish pace. That means it could have trouble addressing all the little issues Congress fails to address, regulatorily, and that it will likely take the court system a while to weed through all the cases that are expected to pop up in the wake of this decision.And that means we could see a somewhat slowed-down implementation of this new, anticipated reality—whichever version we get—which could also mean Congress, and the other facets of the government that will have to change the way they operate, has more time to get their ducks in a row, maybe reducing the impact of the shock the legal system is expected to experience over the next few years as a result of this decision.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Acthttps://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-4ae73d5a79cabadff4da8f7e16669929https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-environmental-rules/https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-health/ap-what-it-means-for-the-supreme-court-to-throw-out-chevron-decision-undercutting-federal-regulators/https://www.axios.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-rulinghttps://www.theverge.com/2024/6/28/24180118/supreme-court-chevron-deference-decision-opinionhttps://www.theverge.com/24188365/chevron-scotus-net-neutrality-dmca-visa-fcc-ftc-epahttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.htmlhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

The end of Chevron deference. On Friday, the Supreme Court overruled the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which deferred to the judgment of federal agencies in interpreting statutory text to create regulations based on ambiguous laws. The 6-3 ruling fell along ideological lines, with the court's six Republican-appointed justices in the majority. The decision is expected to shift the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches while compelling Congress to more specifically address policy issues when creating new laws.You can read the special Friday edition here (paywalled for non-members) and listen to the podcast here.You can read our previous coverage of these cases — including the history of Chevron and a recap of oral arguments — here and here. You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can catch our latest YouTube video on Juneteenth here.Check out Episode 4 of our podcast series, The Undecideds.Please give us a 5-star rating and leave a comment! Today's clickables: A couple of corrections (0:37), Quick hits (1:30), Today's story (3:44), Left's take (7:48), Right's take (11:56), Isaac's take (16:17), Listener question (21:50), Under the Radar (23:31), Numbers (24:17), Have a nice day (25:34)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's overturning the Chevron doctrine? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Glenn breaks down President Biden's terrifying performance during the CNN presidential debate, which he fears put America at risk. Glenn also calls out all the people who knew about Biden's cognitive weaknesses for lying to the American people, people who are now playing politics after Biden's weakness was put on full display. Glenn and Stu further discuss Biden's disastrous performance. Former 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy joins Glenn to discuss how weak Biden is making America look. Trump 2024 national press secretary Karoline Leavitt joins to discuss President Trump's debate win. Glenn reads articles that help prove his theory that Jill Biden has had a manipulative hand in Biden's re-election bid. Stu breaks down the released SCOTUS decisions, including overruling the controversial Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) joins to discuss his push for Biden to be removed immediately under the 25th Amendment.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered," Sara and BlazeTV contributor John Doyle analyze the aftermath of the recent presidential debate. They highlight the stark contrast between Donald Trump's confident performance and Joe Biden's cognitive struggles, featuring clips where Jill Biden helps him down the stairs. They discuss the Democrats' urgent need to replace Biden with a more competent candidate and the legal challenges involved, given state-specific rules on candidate withdrawal. The conversation emphasizes the importance of optics in modern debates, noting how Trump's strategic demeanor resonated with viewers while Biden's poor performance benefited Trump, especially with the media downplaying Trump's successes. They also address economic struggles like rising grocery and gas prices, further undermining Biden's credibility. Sara also discusses key Supreme Court rulings with Josh Hammer, senior counsel at Article III Project and host of "America on Trial with Josh Hammer." Josh breaks down the Fischer v. United States case, which impacts many January 6 defendants and possibly Donald Trump. They then tackle the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case, which limits administrative agency power and emphasizes judicial authority in statutory interpretation. Lastly, they cover the City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson case, which empowers cities to enforce laws against homeless encampments. Today's Sponsor: Flying Ace Spirits Go to https://www.FlyingAceSpirits.com and use promo code UNFILTERED to get free shipping on every order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The numbers are in, the Fed is now letting everyone know the inflation is coming down and the Fed is now prepping to cut the rates. Bank of America is now predicting 3000 gold. Bolivia has not removed the ban for Bitcoin. The [DS] is structure is being dismantled right before our eyes. The SC has been reversing what the [DS] had in place for a long time. [BO] plan to expose Biden has worked, the fake news was given permission to attack him. The narrative of a change change of batter is now being pushed. Now the media will continue to push every step of the way and they will try to force him out. 25th on deck. Ezra Cohen sends out a warning.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge shows price pressures easing further  A measure of prices that is closely tracked by the Federal Reserve suggests that inflation pressures in the U.S. economy are continuing to ease. Friday's Commerce Department report showed that consumer prices were flat from April to May, the mildest such performance in more than four years. Measured from a year earlier, prices rose 2.6% last month, slightly less than in April. Excluding volatile food and energy prices, so-called core inflation rose 0.1% from April to May and 2.6% from 12 months earlier. Both figures were slight improvements on the previous month's data.  Rate cuts by the Fed, which most economists think could start in September, would lead eventually to lower borrowing rates for consumers and businesses. Source: apnews.com https://twitter.com/GRDecter/status/1806731303460733192   - Sticking with a bearish view in 2023 as the benchmark soared 24% The stock market is not the economy. Never forget. Bank of America Eyeballs $3,000 Gold Bank of America is eyeballing $3,000 gold. According to a report released by the big bank, gold prices could potentially hit $3,000 an ounce in the next 12 to 18 months as the Federal Reserve begins cutting interest rates and rising debt drives economic uncertainty. BofA commodity strategist Michael Widmer said he thinks the next bull run will be contingent on a pickup in investment demand. “If non-commercial demand picks up from current levels on the back of the Fed rate cut, the yellow metal could push higher again.” Source: goldseek.com https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1806677713417113859 Political/Rights BREAKING: Chevron is Gone — SCOTUS Rules Unelected Bureaucrats Do Not Have the Power to Create Laws  In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. The ruling, which came in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the branches of government. The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions. However, by a 6-3 majority, the SCOTUS has now declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance. “Justice Neil Gorsuch, the son of a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, wrote separately to call Chevron Deference “a grave anom...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- During one notable exchange at Thursday's presidential debate on CNN, Joe Biden concluded a statement by saying he had “beaten Medicare.” In response, Donald Trump hilariously noted, “well, he is right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” 5:10pm- On Thursday night, CNN hosted 2024's first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Who won the debate? The New York Times polled their opinion columnists—and despite progressives greatly outnumbering conservatives, 10 of 12 columnists thought Trump won, with 2 concluding the candidates battled to a draw, and 0 choosing Biden. Similarly, CNN conducted a flash poll which indicated that 67% of debate watchers thought Trump won, with 33% selecting Biden. 5:15pm- One pre-debate poll measuring national support in the 2024 presidential election had Donald Trump at 41% and Joe Biden at 43%. That same poll now has Trump at 50% and Biden at 42% following CNN's presidential debate. 5:20pm- According to a new, shocking poll out of New Jersey, Donald Trump is now beating Joe Biden by 1% in the Garden State. 5:40pm- Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in Heritage's Meese Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to examine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The near identical cases resulted in the upending of precedent established in 1984 by the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Today's decision delivers a massive blow to unchecked power held by the administrative state—which will no longer be permitted to ostensibly alter Congressional acts via loose interpretations without judicial checks on that power.   

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- Recapping last night's debate, John Favreau—Host of Pod Save America & former Barack Obama Speechwriter—called Joe Biden's performance a “disaster.” 6:10pm- During one notable exchange at Thursday's presidential debate on CNN, Joe Biden concluded a statement by saying he had “beaten Medicare.” In response, Donald Trump hilariously noted, “well, he is right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” 6:15pm- Media Panic: Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough hilariously butted heads over Joe Biden's debate performance—though, both conceded it was not a good night for the president or the Democrat Party. MSNBC's Joy Reid said that the reaction she has received from Democrat insiders is panic. Similarly, while on NBC News, Chuck Todd explained “there is a full-on panic about this performance, not ‘oh like this is recoverable' it's more of an ‘ok, he's got to step aside.'” 6:30pm- Immediately following Thursday's debate, Democrat strategists and left-leaning television anchors began asking whether the party should replace Joe Biden as their presidential candidate given his poor performance and inability to consistently organize his thoughts while answering questions. For example, former Obama Administration Advisor Van Jones told CNN that “there are going to be a lot of people who want [Biden] to consider taking a different course now…That was not what we needed from Joe Biden. It is personally painful for a lot of people.” Could Biden actually be replaced? 6:40pm- On Friday, the Supreme Court issued landmark decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The near identical cases resulted in the upending of precedent established in 1984 by the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Today's decision delivers a massive blow to unchecked power held by the administrative state—which will no longer be permitted to ostensibly alter Congressional acts via loose interpretations without judicial checks on that power. 6:50pm- Could California Governor Gavin Newsom replace Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee? 

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/28/2024): 3:05pm- On Thursday night, CNN hosted 2024's first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Who won the debate? The New York Times polled their opinion columnists—and despite progressives greatly outnumbering conservatives, 10 of 12 columnists thought Trump won, with 2 concluding the candidates battled to a draw, and 0 choosing Biden. Similarly, CNN conducted a flash poll which indicated that 67% of debate watchers thought Trump won, with 33% selecting Biden. 3:15pm- Immediately following Thursday's debate, Democrat strategists and left-leaning television anchors began asking whether the party should replace Joe Biden as their presidential candidate given his poor performance and inability to consistently organize his thoughts while answering questions. For example, former Obama Administration Advisor Van Jones told CNN that “there are going to be a lot of people who want [Biden] to consider taking a different course now…That was not what we needed from Joe Biden. It is personally painful for a lot of people.” Could Biden actually be replaced? 3:30pm- Michael Brendan Dougherty of National Review writes: “Instantly last night, the sentence ‘Joe Biden is unfit for office' was transmuted from a right-wing disinformation campaign to liberal conventional wisdom…It was plainly obvious in February, when, after Robert Hur's report came out saying that Biden was an elderly man struggling with memory problems, Biden then came out in a press conference and gave the kind of performance that causes families to put their aging patriarch into the care of an institution…Everyone in elite media and Democratic politics knew that Biden was not really up to the job, and sometimes barely competent.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/the-covid-era-echo-chamber-collapsed-on-joe-biden-at-last/ 3:50pm- Recapping last night's debate, John Favreau—Host of Pod Save America & former Barack Obama Speechwriter—called Joe Biden's performance a “disaster.” 4:05pm- In his first appearance since last night's presidential debate, Donald Trump spoke before a crowd in Chesapeake, Virginia. 4:15pm- Media Panic: Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough hilariously butted heads over Joe Biden's debate performance—though, both conceded it was not a good night for the president or the Democrat Party. MSNBC's Joy Reid said that the reaction she has received from Democrat insiders is panic. Similarly, while on NBC News, Chuck Todd explained “there is a full-on panic about this performance, not ‘oh like this is recoverable' it's more of an ‘ok, he's got to step aside.'” 4:20pm- While appearing on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe described the situation following Thursday night's debate as a “Defcon 1 moment” for Democrats.   4:40pm- Can Joe Biden be replaced as the Democratic nominee? Philip Elliott and Kohe Ewe explore the possibility in their latest article for Time. They explain: “At present, there is no clear-cut mechanism to replace Biden as the party's nominee—he already won more than enough delegates during the primaries to secure his nomination ahead of the Democrats' national convention in August. Still, there are ways for Democrats to end up with someone other than Biden at the top of the ticket, especially if Biden willingly steps aside—but the timing, and the Democratic National Committee's own regulations, has a lot to do with what's possible, let alone plausible. (Not to mention the challenge of settling on a replacement.)” You can read the full article here: https://time.com/6993607/could-democrats-replace-biden-nominee-explainer/ 5:05pm- During one notable exchange at Thursday's presidential debate on CNN, Joe Biden concluded a statement by saying he had “beaten Medicare.” In response, Donald Trump hilariously noted, “well, he is right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” 5:10pm- On Thursday night, CNN hosted 2024's first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Who won the debate? The New York Times polled their opinion columnists—and despite progressives greatly outnumbering conservatives, 10 of 12 columnists thought Trump won, with 2 concluding the candidates battled to a draw, and 0 choosing Biden. Similarly, CNN conducted a flash poll which indicated that 67% of debate watchers thought Trump won, with 33% selecting Biden. 5:15pm- One pre-debate poll measuring national support in the 2024 presidential election had Donald Trump at 41% and Joe Biden at 43%. That same poll now has Trump at 50% and Biden at 42% following CNN's presidential debate. 5:20pm- According to a new, shocking poll out of New Jersey, Donald Trump is now beating Joe Biden by 1% in the Garden State. 5:40pm- Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in Heritage's Meese Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to examine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The near identical cases resulted in the upending of precedent established in 1984 by the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Today's decision delivers a massive blow to unchecked power held by the administrative state—which will no longer be permitted to ostensibly alter Congressional acts via loose interpretations without judicial checks on that power.    6:05pm- Recapping last night's debate, John Favreau—Host of Pod Save America & former Barack Obama Speechwriter—called Joe Biden's performance a “disaster.” 6:10pm- During one notable exchange at Thursday's presidential debate on CNN, Joe Biden concluded a statement by saying he had “beaten Medicare.” In response, Donald Trump hilariously noted, “well, he is right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” 6:15pm- Media Panic: Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough hilariously butted heads over Joe Biden's debate performance—though, both conceded it was not a good night for the president or the Democrat Party. MSNBC's Joy Reid said that the reaction she has received from Democrat insiders is panic. Similarly, while on NBC News, Chuck Todd explained “there is a full-on panic about this performance, not ‘oh like this is recoverable' it's more of an ‘ok, he's got to step aside.'” 6:30pm- Immediately following Thursday's debate, Democrat strategists and left-leaning television anchors began asking whether the party should replace Joe Biden as their presidential candidate given his poor performance and inability to consistently organize his thoughts while answering questions. For example, former Obama Administration Advisor Van Jones told CNN that “there are going to be a lot of people who want [Biden] to consider taking a different course now…That was not what we needed from Joe Biden. It is personally painful for a lot of people.” Could Biden actually be replaced? 6:40pm- On Friday, the Supreme Court issued landmark decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The near identical cases resulted in the upending of precedent established in 1984 by the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Today's decision delivers a massive blow to unchecked power held by the administrative state—which will no longer be permitted to ostensibly alter Congressional acts via loose interpretations without judicial checks on that power. 6:50pm- Could California Governor Gavin Newsom replace Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee? 

//The Wire//2030Z June 28, 2024////ROUTINE////BLUF: INDICATIONS OF ISRAELI INVASION OF LEBANON CONTINUE TO MOUNT. HOUTHI ATTACKS CONTINUE. TRAIN DERAILMENT IN ILLINOIS CAUSES EVACUATIONS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Middle East: Tensions remain high regarding a potentially impending Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Various world powers continue to express growing concerns, to include the United States. AC: Additionally, maritime watchers have noted the maneuver of various US Navy assets to the region. However, it's not clear as to if these specific movements are routine or more of a diplomatic power projection. However, it is overwhelmingly likely that the preliminary staging of forces throughout the region is occurring to some degree, should a rapid evacuation operation be necessary.Red Sea/HOA: Houthi attacks on commercial shipping continue. Over the past few days, several vessels have reported being targeted by missiles, including one vessel reporting 5x missile strike attempts. So far, all of these targeting attempts appear to be unsuccessful or near-misses.-HomeFront-Illinois: A train derailed in Matteson, causing limited local evacuations due to the leak of at least one car containing LPG. The leak has since been contained, and recovery efforts are ongoing. No other HAZMAT concerns have been identified as a result of this derailment.Kentucky: Yesterday, Rep. Thomas Massie's wife passed away suddenly and unexpectedly. No further details have been released at this time.Washington D.C. – The SCOTUS has overruled a controversial 1984 decision that previously allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. AC: This case, Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council (colloquially known as the Chevron doctrine) has been cited as the bedrock of federal agencies being able to “interpret” the technical details of laws, and in many cases (in effect) add to or detract from the legal text as passed by an elected body. Overruling this case (in theory) removes a substantial portion of the bureaucratic authorities granted to federal agencies, meaning that a substantial shift in administrative law is likely to occur as a result of this ruling, to include the more than 18,000 laws that cite the precedent of this case.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: Last night, Israeli media reported that the White House has lifted the “soft” hold on the export of Mk 82 bombs to Israel. As a reminder, the White House had hesitated to export these unguided munitions for fear of the potential for civilian casualties in Gaza. As such, this shipment (and other shipments of even larger munitions) had been placed under review until the decision was made to complete the arms transfer. Overnight, various Israeli media outlets (citing confidential sources) claimed that the arms transfer had been approved, and the shipment will be completed after the Israeli operation in Rafah has reached a conclusion. Of course, unverifiable information from historically questionable sources must be taken with a grain of salt, however this may signal a few impending milestones: A potential shifting of logistics to support an operation in the North (which would need the larger munitions), a removal of the last American political hesitance to continue arming Israel with larger (and potentially unguided) munitions, and a potential widening of the conflict throughout the Middle East. Analyst: S2A1//END REPORT//

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court just ducked a critical free speech and government control of communications issue thanks to Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts. Barrett decided she's a politician, not a Justice. Kavanaugh will go one way or the other and Roberts is destroying the Court. They just handed the Biden administration a massive iron fist by allowing them to continue to moderate ‘misinformation' on social sites. It seems the Supreme Court has a new tactic - to let stand what's being appealed to the Court by simply claiming there is no standing. The idea there wasn't standing in this case is preposterous. The other big Supreme Court case we're waiting on, that no one is talking about is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This was the mother of all attacks on capitalism, it gave so much power to the bureaucracy. This decision will impact your lives for decades to come. Also, the crime from this illegal immigrant invasion didn't start occurring to this extent until Biden became president. President Biden will point fingers and blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for not passing his bipartisan immigration reform. Democrats have a new answer when confronted on illegal immigrant crime – Americans are worse than illegals. Later, a Biden law that claimed to boost renewable energy is helping a solar company reap billions of dollars. This is the greatest economic scam in American history, and they wrap themselves in self-righteousness. Afterward, the DNC is now officially linked to lawfare against Trump. Dana Bash and her ilk constantly ask where's the evidence tying Biden and the Democrat Party to lawfare against Trump. Here's the evidence, “DNC Sent Millions To Law Firms Behind ‘Unprecedented Lawfare' Campaign Against Trump.” Biden is the head of the DNC. Nothing of this kind is done without at least Biden being informed about it. Biden uses government resources to register Democrats in violation of the Hatch Act. He uses tax dollars to buy votes in violation of the Constitution, like the student loan program. He issues executive orders and his administration issues regulations in furtherance of his radical base's demands. He lies about everything, including the Hunter laptop, his business activities with Hunter, his use of classified information to secure a massive $8 million book advance, and on and on. Biden is a diabolical, cynical, unethical person and politician. Finally, candidate Tim Sheehy calls in to discuss his election run against Montana Senator Jon Tester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Chemicals like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are on the rise in Lake Michigan, according to a new study published by the American Chemical Society. To learn more about this issue, Reset sat down with Chicago Tribune environment reporter Michael Hawthorne and Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. For a full archive of Reset interviews, head over to wbez.org/reset.