Hi Nick.

Hello Hannah.

This is Civics 101, but today, Nick, we're going to dip a toe into 202.

Oh boy, all right.

Today we are talking about something that is wonky as wonky as arcane, especially arcane policy details.

All right, Hannah.

I think we are all going to come out of this one

semi-understanding something that a lot of us don't understand at all and Nick isn't that the point of this show?

Yeah, Hannah, fine.

All right, let's get to it. Hi, my name is Robin Kundis-Greg.

I am the Robert A Schroeder, distinguished professor at the University of Kansas School of Law.

They teach environmental law subjects and write about administrative law and climate change. I called Robin up to talk about something called

the Chevron doctrine and the reason I wanted to talk about it is because the Supreme Court recently overturned

it in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises, The Raimondo.

You mentioned this one before on the episode on the Supreme Court docket.

This is the case that's about fisheries?

Yes, fisheries and federal regulation.

But for the purposes of this episode, here is what I want you to keep in mind.

Two basic principles. One. I mean there's no question that the courts have the basic authority to interpret

statutes Congress of statutes that's you know laid out in Article 3 it's recognized in

the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.

Courts can interpret laws.

...