Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
A programming note: I’m going to be working more frequently with my buds at Slate over the next few months while @mjsdc.bsky.social is out on parental leave and, God willing, not consuming Supreme Court-related content. Please remember to be an ally and click on BOTH versions of these posts, tysm.
slate.com
Trump’s New Effort to Mess With Student Visas Was Shot Down in Humiliating Fashion
The change was set to take effect on Tuesday.
![Text of footnote:
There is an error in the Supreme Court's analysis in Loper Bright. Much of the Court's reasoning (and a part of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence) is devoted to criticizing the Chevron opinion for ignoring section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. See, e.g., 603 U.S. at 397-400, 411-12; id. at 428 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). The Court's critique is unfounded. It is unfounded because section 706 of the APA did not apply to judicial review of the EPA rule at issue in Chevron. Section 706 did not apply because Chevron was not an APA review case. The Clean Air Act superseded the APA: "The provisions of section 553 through 557 and section 706 of Title 5 [the APA] shall not, except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to which this subsection applies." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1). The problem the Court identified in Loper Bright was not with Chevron itself, but with courts, including the Supreme Court, indiscriminately adopting the Chevron formula in later cases in which section 706 of the APA did apply.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jech7rem6vijss4euf4fijao/bafkreifkanop6tkhddyco4lfu2wvvo4mmb6zu7r5sqrtcuealgmlaleqdy)
