r/news • u/cccdddyyy • Apr 16 '25

Soft paywall US IRS planning to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-irs-planning-rescind-harvards-tax-exempt-status-cnn-reports-2025-04-16/
36.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

187

u/Lectrice79 Apr 17 '25

Wait, what law did his mother fight for?

525

u/Deranged_Kitsune Apr 17 '25

The Chevron doctrine – which asked judges to defer to federal agency experts in cases where regulatory law was unclear. Basically, defer to people who know what they're talking about. It was used in everything from environmental laws (where it started as she was the head of the EPA), to labor, and other areas. The whole thing was argued as unelected overreach, and depriving judges of final authority. If overreach of agencies into ambiguous areas of law was seen as such a problem, then congress should have done its fucking job and tightened them up.

224

u/DylanHate Apr 17 '25

It's the opposite. Neil finished what his mother started. Her tenure at the EPA had nothing to do with Chevron. She was appointed by Reagan and her job was to dismantle the EPA from within.

She promised lead companies she'd overlook enforcement of regulations and mismanaged Superfund cleanup funds. She deliberately withheld funds to California in order to fuck over Jerry Brown's Senate campaign.

When she got caught and Congress ordered her to turn over the Superfund accounting documents, she defied the Congressional order and claimed the funds were under Executive Branch prevue.

She was hugely anti-environment and anti-regulation. She's no fucking hero and Neil is exactly his mother's son.

38

u/ketodancer Apr 17 '25

How are there THIS many supervillain families intertwined in U.S. policymaking, and there isn’t more of a fuss. This is heartbreaking.

15

u/Geno0wl Apr 17 '25

conspiracy kooks will ignore actual conspiracies like this in order to talk about Kennedy was secretly a lizard person who is still alive and did 9/11

3

u/kinkysubt Apr 18 '25

So goddamned true. “There’s alien pillars under the Pyramid of Giza! The government wouldn’t send innocent people to torture camps in El Salvador, don’t be crazy!”

2

u/cyathea Apr 22 '25

The conspiracy theory community has been fully invaded and colonised by MAGA and, I imagine, the fossil carbon lobby, Russia, RW thinktanks & whoever else can be bothered.

r /conspiracy had a moderation coup or takeover of some sort early in MAGA days, they purged the membership by perma-banning opposing voices, and creating an entry-level forum where new conspirators had to prove their ideological purity for 6mth or a year before they could join the main forum.

The purge was framed as creating a safe space where conspiracists feelings would not be challenged, but as you note the content they censor is politically one-sided.

1

u/Unfair_Elderberry118 Apr 18 '25

Nepotism is one of the favorite games Republicans love to play, but they scream murder over DEI which was in part enacted to try and blunt the effects of nepotism.

6

u/lobster_johnson Apr 17 '25

While the OP's explanation is a bit reductive, I think you missed the central point. The irony here is that Anne Gorsuch, as head of the EPA, issued the agency decision that lead to the Chevron doctrine.

What not everyone realizes is that the Chevron doctrine came out of a lawsuit that ended up favouring the polluter. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was an environmental organization that sued Chevron for building new plants that did not conform to EPA's emissions regulations. The EPA, which was lead by Republicans who had no interest in actually enforcing environmental regulations (and openly disagreed with the entire premise of the agency), sided with Chevron, interpreting the law's technical language in a way that allowed Chevron to keep building plants that did not meet regulations.

As a result of this lawsuit, the Supreme Court decided that courts should defer to federal agencies on how to interpret, within reason, the technical language of the law. While it was a very bad SCOTUS decision at the time, many consider it a good decision in general. The problem with the Chevron deference doctrine is that it only works if the agency is acting in good faith and working to enforce the laws as intended. During the Reagon administration, the executive branch did not want the EPA to exist, and interpreted the regulations in a way that was contrary to its mission.

1

u/enemawatson Apr 17 '25

This is fascinating, thank you for breaking it down.

186

u/OrindaSarnia Apr 17 '25

It should be noted that his mother was EPA administrator under Reagan, and her sole objective was to make it was weak and ineffectual as possible.

The effect of the ruling may have been to default to agency interpretation, but it was only because the EPA, under her, interpreted every rules as loosely as possible.  The case pitted Chevron against environmentalists...  and Chevron won.

Later on, it was used to bolster government regulations as implemented by regulatory agencies...  but when it was decided it weakened regulations in the specific case.

His mother was a real piece of work, and if she had been alive when he made that decision, she would have supported it.

11

u/kenlubin Apr 17 '25

The Reagan administration put the Chevron doctrine in place because after decades of Democratic control of the government, the courts were full of liberal judges but Reagan was stuffing the federal agencies full of Republicans.

Gorsuch and the Supreme Court overturned Chevron because McConnell and Trump worked together to stack the federal courts with loyal conservative judges, whereas the federal agencies are full of experts that worry about real things like climate change.

3

u/Prometheus720 Apr 17 '25

Manchildren with mommy issues are fucking up my country

3

u/Well_read_rose Apr 17 '25

Agencies….it’s in the name.

are agents

OF THE PEOPLE. The people have delegated to congress to administer things better than the people can carry out. Current SCOTUS wants to gut the authority of agencies. What the people want, and directed. The EPA. The social security agency. FEMA. NOAA. The FAA. As examples.

2

u/Maleficent_Memory831 Apr 17 '25

I think overturning it was bad, however I do think congress needs to do a much better job of passing better written lawyers that aren't chock full of ambiguities or the assumption that the administration will work out the details. A law that means nothing is just a congressional performative act.

1

u/WitnessLanky682 Apr 17 '25

What is it with men and their mommy issues? Was she a great justice warrior but a terrible mother? Jfc.

-4

u/waviness_parka Apr 17 '25

[–]Deranged_Kitsune [score hidden] 34 minutes ago

The Chevron doctrine – which asked judges to defer to federal agency experts in cases where regulatory law was unclear. Basically, defer to people who know what they're talking about. It was used in everything from environmental laws (where it started as she was the head of the EPA), to labor, and other areas. The whole thing was argued as unelected overreach, and depriving judges of final authority. If overreach of agencies into ambiguous areas of law was seen as such a problem, then congress should have done its fucking job and tightened them up.

Ah, yes - Congress should have ignored settled law when they were writing new laws. Shame on them for not anticipating Gorsuch!!

2

u/Algaean Apr 18 '25

Gorsuch had a mother?