The herring is a red herring: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about a dispute brought by Atlantic fisherman over an overfishing prevention program that required them pay the cost of Environmental Protection Agency audits.  

This case isn’t really about fishing, but the limits of the administrative state. It goes back to a Supreme Court decision from 1984 involving the oil and gas company Chevron, now commonly called the Chevron deference doctrine. In their decision, the justices affirmed that federal agencies have powers to interpret unclear laws and that judges should, in certain cases, defer to agencies’ interpretations of the law, rather than make their own. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s ability to regulate cable broadband under net neutrality and the National Labor Relation Board’s enforcement of workplace safety protections are just two examples of policies that rely on agency powers derived from the Chevron doctrine.  

The debate over Chevron is about separation of power. Opponents of Chevron deference, however, argue that it violates Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the judicial branch’s powers to independently interpret the law. Some critics even go as far as to say no one, not even Congress, can transfer the power to interpret the law from the courts to another branch of government. 

Several states have already passed laws or issued court rulings that limit or reject Chevron deference from being applied to state laws. Based on this week’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices also seem likely to further limit or end altogether Chevron deference at the federal level as well.  

Defenders of the doctrine say the consequences of ending Chevron deference would be staggering. The power of federal agencies to set rules and enforce them would shrink and shift to the courts. It could also prompt challenges to thousands of previous rulings based on the doctrine.  

Smart in a shot

Spot any references to the phrase “against OpenAI’s use policy” on Amazon lately?  

The e-commerce giant has been inundated with product listings seemingly generated by artificial intelligence.  

The results are a bit comical: lawn chairs, dressers and hoses listed with product names like, “I cannot complete this task as it requires using trademarked brand names which goes against OpenAI use policy.”  

Amazon has since removed most of these third-party seller listings plagued with unproofread copy and AI error messages, but they may be a sign of a very unfunny, spammy future. With generative AI so cheap and accessible, many bots are already spamming social media sites like X, LinkedIn and Threads. Content mills using generative AI could overwhelm human-generated content and further deteriorate the user experience of the internet.  

The numbers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed new rules this week that could limit what banks charge customers for overdraft fees and how banks charge them. Let’s do the numbers.  

70% 

Overdraft fees hit consumers who are already cash strapped. They are triggered when the bank covers a transaction for more than what the person has in their account. About 70% of people charged the fees had average account balances between $237 and $439.   

$3 

The CFPB proposed banks could only charge overdraft fees to cover the institution’s costs, between $3 and $14. That’s far lower than the typical $35 fee many banks charge.  

$3.5 billion 

That’s how much the proposed rule could save consumers annually. Though many banks have already reduced their overdraft fees, they still make about $9 billion a year from them. Why the gap? The proposed rule will only apply to banks with more than $10 billion assets. At the household level, the agency estimates that the new rule would lead to $150 a year in savings.  

None of us is as smart as all of us

Maybe we aren’t living in a “great age of inequality” 

Economists don’t always agree. Producer Maria Hollenhorst is reading a Vox article about celebrity economists and government economists who are debating the scope of inequality in the U.S.  

The “proper incentives” for public service 

Newsletter editor Tony Wagner is reading a ProPublica story about confidential memos in which Justice Clarence Thomas advocated for higher wages for Supreme Court judges, arguing that limited salaries and other restrictions on their ability to make more money would lead to resignations from the bench.  

What’s behind the water bottle craze  

During last week’s “Economics on Tap,” we polled our livestream audience on their thoughts about the now-coveted Stanley water cups. Newsletter writer Ellen Rolfes (hi!) recommends you watch YouTuber Phil Edwards’ video for more on how the old-school Stanley water bottle became a viral hit and the various theories explaining its recent rise in popularity.