The Daily Signal - TOP NEWS | SCOTUS to Consider Limiting Federal Government’s Power, Illegal Alien Murders 5 People, Hunter Biden in Court | May 1

Episode Date: May 1, 2023

On today’s Daily Signal Top News, we break down: The Supreme Court will reconsider a 1980s case that could scale back the authority of federal agencies. First Republic Bank fails in the second largest bank failure in American history.  Authorities search for an illegal alien who killed 5 people in Texas. Hunter Biden is in court for a child support case. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District counter sues Disney after Disney sued Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.   Relevant Links Listen to other podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/ Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription   Listen to more Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcasts Sign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Virginia Allen. I'm Samantha Sherris. And this is the Daily City of Top News for Monday, May 1st. Here are today's headlines. Does the federal government have too much power? That is a question the Supreme Court is preparing to answer. The justices announced earlier today that they will reconsider a 1980s case that could scale back the authority of federal government agencies in some pretty significant ways. The case before the High Court now has to do with fishermen, actually. Some fishermen in the Atlantic say that the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot require them to pay the salaries of the government monitors who ride on the fishing boats with them. The Supreme Court

has agreed to take up that case. And in hearing this case, the court will reconsider the 1984 case Chevron versus National Resources Defense Council. Here with us to explain more is Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow and host of the SCOTUS 101 podcast, Jean-Carlois-Colnoff. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me, Virginia. So can you explain this Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council case that was obviously considered way back in the 1980s?

what did the court decide on the case back then, and what are they considering now? Well, first off, I don't really like you saying that the 1980s are way back because I was born in the 80s, so I don't feel that old. My apologies, John Carlin. You're not old. You're not old. But so to understand Chevron, let me explain how it is that agencies, executive branch agencies do what they do. So usually Congress passes a law, and it says we give to an executive branch agency certain. powers and it explains the powers and there's usually some wiggle room right there's usually some detail left out you know how exactly are you to enforce the you know laws protecting fish right there's there's room where agencies get to sort of

interpret those statutes well what Chevron said is when a statute is when a statute is ambiguous about what power an agency has who gets to decide what the real agency power is the agency gets to decide and the courts will defer to their interpretation of their own statutes, provided it is reasonable. What in practice that has meant is that agencies have used vague language in statutes, or even sometimes not very vague language in statutes, but they've relied on what's called Chevron deference, the deference doctrine from the case, to expand power in all sorts of new and wild ways.

So you mentioned the fisheries case. There is a law that says that an executive branch agency can put monitors onto fishermen's boats to make sure they're not overfishing. Who pays the monitor? That's not a question that anyone has that's in the statute. The agency has said, well, because it's not in the statute, we get to decide who has to pay. The fishermen have to pay the wages of the government monitors that we've put on their boats. They say that this is unjust, it's unlawful, it's a force-taking, you're forcing us to pay for our own regulators. It's not right, and it's not in the statute. The lower court in this case said, yes, it's not in the statute but because of Chevron deference.

It's not unreasonable, so the agency gets to do this. Now, Chevron has been the subject of a great deal of criticism over the years because agencies have used it to expand power, their power in all sorts of wild and creative ways and take for themselves powers that it's not clear that Congress ever wanted them to have. So in recent years, a lot of cases have raised challenges to Chevron. The Supreme Court has not overruled Chevron. It's done something else, which has been very interesting. It has ignored it entirely.

And it has just taken the position that, well, actually, all of these statutes are actually clear and they don't give the agency the power that it wants. This case is different. This might actually be the case that really puts a straightforward challenge to Chevron because the statute does not say that the agencies can or cannot force payment. there really might be an ambiguity here. And so we might actually see a challenge to Chevron deference. And how broad could this be?

I mean, would it really just affect kind of niche situations like this, where it's fishermen who don't want to pay for the monitors on their boats, or could it affect a lot of society as a whole in how we see limits placed on government power? So had you asked me that question two years ago, I would have said it was going to be a big deal. because Chevron is one of the primary mechanisms by which agencies take a lot of power for themselves. But although the Supreme Court has not overruled Chevron in the past, it has effectively limited it in many ways.

So, number one, it has said essentially that the realm of cases where Chevron applies, that Chevron applies when statutes are ambiguous. The Supreme Court has said most statutes just aren't that ambiguous. So it has really limited the scope of when Chevron would apply. It has also said, articulated something called the major questions doctrine, which has said when an agency does something which has a major effect on the economy or on political life, we require, the Supreme Court requires really clear delegations of power, which also narrows the scope of cases where Chevron may apply. But still, this case, Chevron applies in a lot of cases. The lower courts use it all the time to allow agencies to expand their power. So there is still a broad area of cases where restricting Chevron or eliminating Chevron deference

could really limit agency power, especially in these sort of day-to-day burdensome regulations that really put the screw to small businesses. And how quickly will the Supreme Court hear arguments for this case? And then when would we be looking at getting a ruling? So this case will not come up this term. It'll come up next term sometime after October of this year. So an opinion could come down anywhere between, you know, November and next June. Okay.

John Carlo, we really appreciate your expertise on this. And for all of our listeners, if you want to hear more from John Carlo, check out his podcast that he co-hosts with Zach Smith, Scotus 101. First Republic Bank has failed. This is the second largest bank failure in American history. Now, J.P. Morgan Chase is buying up most of the bank's assets that total over 200,000. billion dollars. J.P. Morgan has also assumed responsibility for the deposits made in the bank, which total over $90 billion. The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation helped to arrange the deal

between the two banks. So what is the difference between the failure of First Republic Bank and the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in March? Peter St. Ange is a research fellow in economics here at the Heritage Foundation, and he recently explained some of the details of the agreement between the two banks on Twitter. St. Ange explained what the role the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the FDIC, is playing in this situation. Morgan is actually paying, which is a nice change. We the taxpayers don't have to pay them to take it on. They're paying $10.6 billion, but it actually books a profit immediately, two and a half billion, in fact, since the FDIC is,

sweetening the deal, meaning you are sweetening the deal with $13 billion in shared losses on the loans plus $50 billion in fresh financing. So the FDIC's threadbare coverage already scrounging to just 0.6% of all deposits gets even thinner. Note the FDIC already lost, meaning you already lost, $22.5 billion on Silicon Valley Bank, most of which $19 billion, will be converted into what the FDIC calls a special assessment, which is a tax on your bank account. They're going to take that nice and slow over the next four years, presumably so you don't notice. After all, you don't shear the sheep all at once. Now, Morgan taking on all deposits does avoid the uncomfortable conversation whether indeed all rich depositors in America have been pre-bailed out by Janet Yellen,

which would trigger the mother of all special assessments. And so when the smoke clear, There's yet another fast-living bank found a new home, and it only cost you $63 billion paid to the largest bank in America. According to St. Aege, other large American banks are struggling right now because of the interest rate hikes. The Federal Reserve is meeting Wednesday and is expected to raise interest rates to 5.1%. St. Age predicts interest rates will remain stable for a while and then will fall as the 2024 presidential election approaches. To be continued. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, local officials, and the FBI have put $80,000 aside for reward money for tips that might lead to the location of a man who executed five people over the weekend. Among the victims was a nine-year-old boy and his mother.

The suspected shooter is 38-year-old Francisco-Ora Pesa. The story of what happened is both tragic and troubling. Wilson Garcia was neighbors with the alleged shooter, Oropesa. The Associated Press reports that Oropesa was shooting his gun outside his home in the town of Cleveland, Texas, north of Houston, late Friday night. Neighbor, Wilson Garcia, asked Oropesa to stop shooting his gun so close to their home. He said no, so Garcia called the police. About 10 to 20 minutes later, Oropesa charged Garcia's house and began shooting. About 15 people were gathered at the home at the time.

Garcia's wife and son were killed. And we now know that Oropesa was in the country illegally. Tom Homan is the former acting director of immigration and customs enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security and is currently a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He joined Fox Business this morning and said the alleged shooter was deported multiple times. So every time he came back after being deported, that's a felony. You know, but the sad thing under Secretary Mayorkas, he's not a priority for ICE. ICE wasn't even looking for him, even though he ran to the country numerous times, and every time he did it was a felony.

He didn't meet the Secretary of Majorca's Priority Memorandum. Now that he murdered five innocent people, now of a sudden he'd become a priority. Authorities are on their third day of a manhunt for Oropesa, but Homan says his best guess is that Orypherson, Pesa has already fled to Mexico. The president's son, Hunter Biden, was in court today. The younger Biden was in an Arkansas courtroom over a case involving child support for a four-year-old girl Hunter Biden had out of wedlock with London Roberts.

The case was initially settled in 2020, but reopened last year when Hunter Biden asked for his child support payments to be lowered. Hunter Biden is reportedly paying $20,000. a month in child support and has paid a total of $750,000 to Roberts. The child's mother has also requested her last name be changed to Biden. The trial is set to take place this summer, and the judge has ordered both Hunter Biden and Roberts to be present at all future hearings in the case. Before we go today, we have an update on the ongoing dispute between Disney and Florida

Governor Rhonda Santis. You all will remember that DeSantis has been seeking to end Disney World's self-governing status that it has enjoyed for decades. Then last week, Disney filed a lawsuit against DeSantis, claiming that the governor had launched a targeted campaign of government retaliation against the House of Mouse. But earlier today, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District announced it is countersuing Disney. Martin Garcia is the chair of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. He told Politico today that Disney sued us. We have no choice now but to respond. The district will seek justice in state court here in Central Florida, where both it and Disney reside and do business. We will keep you all posted on this lawsuit as it moves forward.

But with that, we're going to leave it there for today's episode. Thanks so much for joining us here on the Daily Signal's top news. If you haven't gotten a chance, be sure to check out our morning show right here in this podcast feed where we interview lawmakers, experts, and leading conservative voices. Join us tomorrow morning. I'm going to be sitting down with Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, to talk about the ways that Oklahoma is aggressively pursuing school choice options for families and pushing back against the radical left's woke agenda within classrooms across the state.

Also, make sure you subscribe to The Daily Signal wherever you get your podcasts and help us reach even more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We read all of your feedback. Thanks again for joining us today. We hope you all have a great evening, and we'll see you right back here tomorrow morning. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Luey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop.

To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.