Lightening like Steve McQueen I make a fast lane when the light turns green and I built tough I ain't nothing but grit cause I made rugged blood, sweat and spit. Yeah, like a horse I fly better put yourself in for a bumpy ride. I like to play hard but I work harder and I weather the storm cause I'm built stronger.
What is up, ladies and gentlemen, we are back. We are live. It is the freight coach morning show, the top morning show in transportation. Coming to you guys every single weekday, 830 in Pacific, 1030 central, to break down some industry headlines and most importantly, provide some actual insight into what you can do with all of this information. If this is your first time tuning in, welcome. This is the real side of freight, ladies and gentlemen. And I said that before every single show. And what I mean by that is I only speak to transportation professionals on this show because at the end of the day, I want to provide the information from the people who have done what you're looking to do or who are currently doing what you're trying to achieve.
So you can take that information, apply it, utilize it, and see a meaningful difference in your business and your life. We got a very special treat here today for you, ladies and gentlemen. Jamie. Good morning over on YouTube. Yeah, you guys, we go live on YouTube. So if you're watching this over on LinkedIn, jump over to YouTube. You guys, I've heard that the stream quality is exponentially better. And we got a very special guest here for you guys today to talk about the Chevron ruling here in the supreme Court. And I have Mister island boy, aka the armchair attorney, aka Matthew Leffler, on the show in full on dad mode. Let's go.
Good morning, Chris. Let me tell you, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly pronounce the very definition of tyranny. That's James Madison, Federalist paper number 47. He said that. January 30, 1788. This is what this case is all about. Loper Bright is about the fundamental question of separation of powers. I could not be more excited to be here with you today. Thank you for having me on the program.
Dude, I love that intro. I love the history lesson right away. And, you know, I forgot to take my don't tread on me flag down here because, you know, that phrase was directed by the original colonies as a warning to the British, is what you would happen if you fuck with our rights. And, you know, it's. It's honestly something that I, as an individual, as a man, embody the individualism and liberty of every single one of us, to not be told what to do in every single situation that goes on out there. And I think that this ruling, is. It's a lot like you said it best in your post this morning. Like, this is probably the largest ruling that we will experience in our lifetime in the Supreme Court. And why is that, though, Matt? Why is this so important?
And why is the media not as vocal about this as one would, should be? I would say because like, this, if it is the biggest case, yeah, you would think that this would be talked about a lot. And it's like, it's not hard to find information about it, but it's not like it's on nightly news every single night.
No, I think that's a really good point you bring up. So to give some additional context to the viewers, this loper bright cases, it has overruled a case called Chevron. Chevron was this case that came out in 19, 84, 40 years ago, and that case established a level of, we call it Chevron deference, but realistically, it's when you allow a federal agency to look at its own belly button, its own statute, and say, I have the authority to do something. And the federal courts, which are the kind of check over the executive and the check over the legislative branch, they have been kind of hamstrung. Their hands are tied. They can't challenge the rule that's been issued by the federal agency. In cases of ambiguity. Let me make it very clear.
This case is as controversial, as important as we talk about before went live of Roe versus Wade, we all understand Roe. This idea of having this fundamental individual right to have access to an abortion that was overturned, it's easy to understand. Why haven't the media covered this case in Loperbright very much yet? They don't understand it when they understand it. This will be absolutely, unequivocally everywhere. This is the most important case in my lifetime and likely the most important case in many of your viewers lifetime. The idea of three branches of government that have co equal power and can check each other was kind of eviscerated through the Administrative Procedures act and eventually getting to what Chevron became. We can talk about the nuances of it, but that's the real highlight. This is overturning 40 years of precedent.
Most people have no experience of what life was like before Chevron was the case in 84.
And I think, like, you know, again, back to, you know, some of our founding fathers and everything about having, you know, the separation of all of this stuff right away. You know, you have the legislative branch, you have the executive branch and the judicial branch. Right? And you need those three separate powers, because, like, fundamentally, at the end of the day, it is not like all of this shit should be challenged, right? Like, no matter what, all of this stuff should be challenged at all times, because no one person's opinions or no one's person's way of life should supersede anybody else's individual decisions on what they should do with their life. Right? Like, I'm a firm believer in that at all, and you can take that in any way that you want, but I am a firm believer as the right of.
The individual has the right to say and do whatever the fuck they want to do, within reason, obviously. Like, you know what I mean? But there. There shouldn't be anybody telling me what I can and can't do. And I think, like, you know, Chief Justice Roberts, excuse me, you know, he wrote the opinion on this and that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within the statutory authority. And that sticks out a lot to me because, especially over these last couple of years, because you could argue some of these, you know, and you can even make current arguments currently, right now within the Department of Transportation, that they are vastly overreaching on what they should or should not be doing with the transportation industry.
That's a great point. What I'd like to do, and this is why I think the media hasn't covered this, is we have to kind of explain what the administrative state is. Most people think of it as, like, EPA, FTC, OSHA, whatever, but this is how it works. It starts off with Congress passing what we call an enabling statute or an enabling legislation. Essentially, Congress says, hey, executive branch, please take our power. Take our power and exercise it as you see fit. And all we're going to do is we're going to fund it. We're going to help you fund it. And so this idea of whether or not the congressional branch of our government can give up that authority is questioned right now.
I mean, one of the things that Clarence Thomas did in his separate concurrence was basically say, I don't think any of this is legal. I think all of these agencies should go away. But the real question becomes why?
I love Clarence Thomas.
Once it goes to the executive branch then creates the agency, and they use the enabling statute to make the rules. And when they make a rule. They post it on a website. Industry comments. And when the rule is final, it has the exact same power as a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. It is a law that you must now comply with. What happens where it becomes kind of dangerous is when an administrative agency looks at its own statute and says, we think we have this power. And I use the example of the OSHA vaccination case. Everybody remembers this. OSHA came out and said, here's the deal, folks. Everybody's going to have to mandate vaccines in your businesses. And if you don't do it, then you have to create a testing regime.
And in our industry, for trucking, we don't got the margins for that. We could never do that. So ultimately, that case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Supreme Court said, wait a second. Where, where in the OSHA case? Where is Osha's statute? Do we find the power to do this? It doesn't exist. And they threw it out. And that's been the thing we've been watching, is when a federal agency takes the power of the judiciary, takes the power of the legislative branch, it gives the executive branch way more power than the founding fathers ever contemplated. They would be appalled to see what we've done. But it's important for your viewers to understand this is how it's been done for 40 years. It's been done, actually, since 1940s, 1950s, but the deference was relatively new in.
The eighties, I think, you know, because, again, I put the link to the article that we're talking about here, you guys, there's. This is the one that I found is, even though it's from CNBC, I thought this one kind of laid out things very good overall, you know, because it goes on because it does, it says the ruling will hobble agencies with specialistic scientific knowledge that will now be second guessed by federal judges. It goes on to say it puts the courts at an apex of the administration process as to every conceivable subject, because there are always gaps in ambiguities and regulatory statutes and often are of great importance. What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the nation's healthcare system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial and transportation system?
What rules are going to constrain the development of AI? And then at the time it was decided Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration, it goes on to say, but, you know, I put this like this. I specifically put, remove that quote from it because the EPA is currently coming out in our industry in, you know, you, there's, it's very well documented that the Biden administration, what their intentions are with the trucking industry to electrify everything. You know, they have put plenty of laws out there or, you know, these proposals to completely electrify in the fleets of trucks, I, personal cars, everything over the next coming years. And now, you know, my stance. What? I literally talked about this yesterday. My stance is pretty clear on a lot of this. If you want to have an electric vehicle.
But it's not the government's job to tell me that I have to have an electric vehicle. Fuck that. I want to have a combustion, engine. That's what I want. Right? And I think, like, again, speed limiters, that's another one. What's the fucking, what's the fucking point of a speed limit? What's this point of a speed limit? I want somebody to come on here from the dot to explain to me how, what is the point of a speed limit if we have speed regulators and stuff like that? It's gross overreach, man. It is gross overreach.
I love the call out of speed regulation. So the idea of speed regulators, they're out there already. Like, every major fleet that I'm aware of has some limitations on their speed. They want the small motor carriers to do the same thing that they do. They want everyone to be this way. But there are speed limits in every single state. There are states that have speed limits. So if you're a professional driver, you should be able to exercise your discretion and how fast you want to go. Now, ultimately, there is a lot of good value in going slower, better for maintenance, better for tires, better for all sorts of things, better for fuel, but it's your choice. And I think what we're going to find is federal regulators who have grossly overreached with their power.
The hubris that these agencies have in making rules that are way outside of their realm of expertise is going to be challenged, and we should want this. I think this is a great moment for Congress to take accountability. Congress has been so benefited by giving up their authority so that all they have to do is spend time raising money for reelection. They don't have to do the work of the people because they've given it to the federal government's executive branch. That should not be the case. We want it back in the hands of legislators and legislators, if you don't like this, get out office. Because you have to start doing the work of the people. You can't defer to the agencies to make everything.
And I will mention if the federal agency's rule is found to be unenforceable or unconstitutional, you can go to Congress. You can go to Congress and ask them to make a law. So there's still a pathway to get things done.
Yeah, I think that there is. You know, from. From my perspective, that, like what you said, there is literally the biggest issues that we are currently facing inside of. You know, because, you know, there's. There's a lot of other articles that I read about this, that essentially they're cutting the powers of the deep state. That this is what this is designed for in the deep state is, you know, at least from my opinion, it is the unelected officials that are appointed to some of these agencies that are telling us as individuals how we have to live. Like, again, the EPA. I didn't fucking vote for the EPA to tell me what output of carbon emissions that my vehicle has. I elected Andy fucking Biggs. He's my state representative here in the state of Arizona. I fucking elected him. I voted for him.
I didn't vote for the fucking EPA. I didn't vote for any of this shit. I didn't vote for fucking Pete Buttigieg to run the Department of Transportation, all right? And that, to me, is what needs to happen. They need to fucking pull this shit back, man. Because again, they're like, at what point is too much? I think we have far surpassed the. Too much is too much.
I think you're right. I mean, I think if you go back in time, we talked earlier, what would the founding fathers or the framers of the Constitution think of what they saw today? And they would see four branches of government almost. They would see a judiciary, they would see a legislative, they would see an executive, and they would see this weird thing of the administrative state. If you're a business, your regulations that you deal with, besides the state regulations, are almost all coming through federal agencies, almost every single one of them. And they change. Each administration changes. And we as Americans should be skeptical whenever one branch gets far too much power. I think ultimately, this case is really hard to tell what will end up happening.
I think the example I can talk about really in depth is the FTC's rule trying to ban non competition. There was a path, I'm telling you, there was a path where the FTC's final rule would have been enforceable under the Chevron doctrine. That was definitely possible. But after this Chevron ruling. I am. It's not going to happen. There's no way it'll actually happen. FTC doesn't have the authority and they're not, the courts are not going to defer to the FTC's interpretation of their own law. They're going to say, as you quoted with Justice Roberts, the judges will look at the law. The judges will decide, do you have the authority? If you don't have the authority, go back to Congress. Don't pass, go. The rule is dead. And I think that's what's going to happen with the FTC's ban, unfortunately.
Yeah. Because a federal judge in the state of Texas blocked that. That's right. Essentially. You know, I saw a post, I think it was Brent or Suga put it out there about all these people who are celebrating this stuff as a done deal before it was actually done. And you know, like the non competes thing because again, like my opinion on non competes are like I've stated it, right? Like if you have equity in a company like actual equity, not air quote equity, you have actual, you should be under a non compete at the end of the day because you have proprietary information that could legitimately cut a company out and gut them if you left. You know, I truly feel that way for the frontline workers that a lot of them are adhered to. Absolutely bullshit.
At the end of the day, it is absolute bullshit. But again, there should not be the, who the fuck is the FTC? Right? Like at the end of the day, who the fuck are they? This is telling me what to do in my business.
This is a great example you give. So like the FTC was watching Congress try to make a rule on non competes. There was a thing called the Workforce Mobility act. It's in Congress, it's stuck in committees. It's never going to get delighted day. And the federal government, the administrative of Biden's administration said, okay, if I can't get Congress to collaborate with me and cooperate, I'll just do it myself. And we as again, Americans have become so accustomed to just giving up our rights and giving up power to other places because it's easy, it's comfortable and we just can't be complacent. We have to challenge these things. And ultimately with this ruling, it's going to really shake up how regulators approach making new regs. And I think that's a good thing.
We should all slow down and watch the status quo before we start expanding agencies to do every single thing like mandating vaccinations or banning contracts and all the other things they're looking to do.
I think a great way to put this out there, you guys, in plain English for a lot of individuals who might be listening to this and like, I'm still fucking confused. This stops Congress to assigning some of these mandates to a federal agency to try and put down on the american citizens. That's what this legitimately strips it, because now it opens up the clear pathway of a judge, a federal judge to strike any of this bullshit down. It was the same thing that was going. Because again, like these last couple of years, Matt, are very much aligned in this, right? Because it was a lot of the, you use the term mandates a lot that were going on here. It was allowed until a federal driven, a judge in the state of Florida said, fuck that.
And then all of a sudden everybody had to walk back. I personally think it took way too long before somebody stepped up and said anything. Just like with a lot of the stuff that has been going on, I think it takes way too long. I think this streamlines a lot of it to where it's like the second somebody says something, a federal judge can strike a motion. And I want you to get your legal perspective here. The second one of these things gets rolled out now a federal judge can, or if somebody brings it up to the court, system can stop it immediately. Right?
Yeah. So this is where it gets really complicated, and this is why I'm so excited to do this. When I was sitting in administrative law class back in 2008 or 2009 with Professor Kalt, I had no idea I would be on a program like this talking about the rules and the laws of our country. The way this works is a statute is created by Congress if it is a clear statute. So let's say FMCSA, they have an enabling statute. It lets them regulate hours of service. Courts are not going to challenge the FMCSA when it comes to hours of service. They're going to say, your statute clearly gives you the authority to make sure the roads are safe and drivers are operating safely. We are not going to challenge that.
What the question becomes is if the agency wants to do something more innovative, more expansive, then it becomes an issue. So the example I'll give, we talked about ocean demand. We talked about FTC and the non compete. Maybe FMCSA with autonomous vehicles. Maybe autonomous vehicles is not necessarily in the FMC's purview. Maybe Congress should be the ones talking about automotive autonomous trucks. So that's when it happens. So the way that the judges look and they look at a law passed by an agency, they're going to say, okay, what's your rule? You look at that. What is your statute say you get to do? If they work, we hands off.
But if we look at the rule and the law that made the agency come to begin in the first place and we say, I don't think your law lets you do that, the judge can now say, throw it out. I get to make that decision. The old days was if you had the law that came out and the enabling statute and they conflicted, the courts would say, oh, well, the agency says they have that power, so we're just going to take their word for it. That is what's gone now. The deference to the agency interpreting their own statute, the way I've heard law professors talk about it, is the agency looks at its belly button and says, yeah, I can do that. They don't get to do that, Chris. They don't get to do that.
This is why Chevron is so fantastically interesting and I'm so glad to be here to talk about it.
I'm, dude, like, this is, this to me is like, I am in 100% agree of what you said earlier, Matt, that this is the most important case that is out there because, you know, again, I'm not this far fucking extreme. Don't believe in government at all kind of person. I do believe in the confines office. I do believe in the rule of law and having just because I might not think something as fair as an individual, it's probably fair for the masses. And I understand the value in that because I'm not right in everything that I think. I mean, sometimes people need to be wrong, but, you know, I'm, I'm of the mindset that there needs to be a structure in place, but I do not believe in the overreaching of it.
And I really think that in our life and because both you and I, Matt, are under the age of 40, so we've only lived in this environment.
I got about six more months and then I'm no longer in that bucket. You're right. I'm 39.
My age. But with that outfit, man, you're fucking 30 forever.
To your point, I believe in limited government. I believe in the government of enumerated powers where the constitution, which is less than 5000 words, most of the text of the constitution is about the legislative branch. That was the most important branch to the founding fathers. And what their entire idea was to get away from despotism. To make checks and balances and separate the powers. And as we saw time go on under FDR and others, creating these big agencies and the rules the agencies put forward. I don't disagree with making agencies like Department of Labor or FMCSA. They do a very important work, want to reach beyond their statute. It's not up to them to decide if they have the power. If you ask the executive, do you have the power to do this? The executive will always say, of course I do.
Of course I do. You voted for me, and now I'm going to do what I want to do. This is the check we need. We need our courts to look at the rules being promulgated by agencies and make a determination. Do you have this power? And for 40 years, if you ask that question as an administrative agency, you won. You won. It hasn't been since 2016 since we've seen Chevron applied at the Supreme Court level. So for many of your viewers, it might just look like business as usual because our Supreme Court has hated chevron. At least a faction has hated chevron since the very moment it became the law of the land. Now it's gone, and it'll be potentially the Wild west. And I'm excited to see what happens in the next couple of years.
I'm right there with you, man. I. You know, Robert Bain says, one agency to rule them all feels like a story I've heard before. We all know how that went. Matthew Leffler, I. You know, like, when it boils down to it, you know, to me is. Is the. What America was set out to be and has since gone far fucking away from it, in my opinion. A lot of things is. It does boil down to the rights of the individual. Like you said, if you want to read some of the founding documents, you guys, it is the rights of us as the citizens, not the rights of the government. And, you know, it bothers me how it's been through word vomit, been convoluted through time to make us feel as citizens that the government is actually in control.
You know, again, like, here's one of the best lines that I've ever seen. There is no such thing as government funding. It is taxpayer funded. That is our money that is going to.
We take out a lot of debt, too, Chris. Let's be money all the time.
Yeah, no, for sure. For sure. But my point here is, as an individual, you should be celebrating this. You should be celebrating this because this is a major step in the return to the individual liberties as us, as citizens of the United States of America. This isn't, you know, take everything I said. I'm not a fan of big government, and I'm not going to fuck it. You're not going to change my opinion of it. I never have been and I never will be. I don't need daddy to tell me what to do. But as an individual, I look at, you know, you're a father, I'm a father. A lot of people who are watching this are parents. This is a major win for our children.
If this stands at the levels that it is, this is a major win for our children because us as an individual is way, way, way more important. All right? There's 360 million citizens in the United States of America, you guys. We make up the country, not the 500 fucking bureaucrats in DC that we know about because it's the five. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States of America. That is a fucking problem right there. That is a problem because it's those 3 million employees that this law now remove their power because they are not our elected officials.
I'll say it this way, Chris. I don't disagree with you necessarily, but as I always am, I'm going to liberal.
You're too liberal, as the audience says.
Aware of how their government works. We were not founded by Meek people. We were founded by innovators and people who would have been murdered or killed because of the way that they thought. And the reality of what we've seen for the last 40 years is America sleepwalking. We've been walking through the motions. We haven't been paying attention to what's happening. And if you look at this ruling and you're in your in despair because there are people, I have many friends that are in despair over this ruling. I'll tell you this. There is a path. Congress still is there. Your elected officials can still make laws if you really care about them. And what we need is a democracy. Whether you're a Republican, a democrat, a moderate, whatever iteration of political fancy you find yourself, you need to be informed.
You have to understand how this works. We don't get a lot of Supreme Court cases that make people go, wait, what? What are we talking about? But this case is going to do that. It's going to challenge the way we think about our government and it will help us understand, I hope, what did our founding fathers intend and were they right? Because Chevron, deferens, you can make that into a law through Congress. Congress can do that. The OSHA mandate on vaccines is a great example. Could Congress pass a law that forced you to vaccinate? Absolutely. Absolutely. The government can come and take your property. They'll pay you for it, but they take it from you. So the government has this power. Do the agencies have the power? No, they don't. And that is a good thing. We want our elected officials accountable.
We have to take excuses out of the hands of Democrats and Republicans who say, oh, the administration so terrible. No, you are a co equal branch of government. Don't give up your power. Don't do that.
Amen. I love that, Matt. I think that's a great analogy right there. A great statement about it because you know it's true. It's time that with this we do start holding our elected officials accountable for this. And I, and I understand how some people could be nervous about what this could do.
Oh, absolutely.
There is very polarizing topics that are out there that could essentially affect, and I get that. I understand.
Let me give you an example, Chris. Like this, I think to your point, I want to build off of this, the rise of the administrative state is the idea that experts know better. It's, we're going to be led by a technocracy, the technocratic group who will tell us what we do. And there's this idea, it's paternalistic or whatever, that big government can do better than you can in making decisions for yourself. We'll just do it for you because we know the best outcome. And that is a hubris that has been building for 40 years. And the question you've outlined is what do we do next? Well, we need to pay attention. We need to watch what's happening. And if there are laws that we like or don't like, we need to be vocal about those things.
But finally, the hand, the power has moved back to the other branches of government, to the judiciary, to the legislative branch. And this is a good thing.
Yes, I know. I agree. I think that, you know, especially with election season being in full swing right here, you guys, this is one of those things that you need to pay attention. Who is in favor of your individual liberties as a candidate and who is not, who is in charge of their, or who is more concerned about their own power of it? Because that, you know, that's really what you need to get involved. Get it, get involved with your local state politicians, you know, all those elections all the way up to the federal ones. You need to stop looking at the ballot and then just going, you know, in one way or another, I think that this is a very pivotal time in our country.
And I think this ruling very much aligns with the direction that we could go in this country, and it could go backwards.
Remember, like, this was a six to three decision by the Supreme Court. If you get more justices appointed by more administrative friendly folks, it can change just as quickly. So you have to keep in mind that elections have consequences, and judicial appointments are the most important thing an executive branch does. Like, it's super important. So it's a. We had to be. We got to make sure we know why we're voting for the things we're voting for, because those consequences are what's going to impact us for the next 40 years from now. It's going to be madness.
I love it. I love it. And that was madness is a great way to describe this 30 minutes segment here, because we just absolutely mind fucked this one because this is now, this is exactly why I wanted you to come on here and bring your, you know, like, to actually a show. Matt isn't leaning one way or another. He is a true believer in the constitution of the United States. I am a firm believer in the constitution of the United States. I am a firm believer individual liberties. And at the end of the day, I just want everybody to fucking win. I don't want anybody to tell me what I can and can't do, just like I want the same for you.
I want every individual person who listens to this to make the best decisions that they need in their lives and not have anybody in the government, the federal government, tell you that you cannot do that. I truly feel that way as a person. And, you know, I love this country. I love that flag that I fly behind me literally every single day, because I believe in this. I believe in this. I believe in the american dream. I believe in the fact that you can come here from any other nation, or you can be born here, and you can fucking make something of yourself and not be told that you're. You can only do this or only do that. I truly feel that way.
And I'm never going to hide my opinions about this, because the United States of America, the land of opportunity that it truly is, in my opinion, is we need to vocalize this, and you need to do that. It is your duty as an individual to fucking exercise your rights. So that is where we're gonna have to end this one, because Matt has to go boating. If you guys couldn't tell. He is a full. Hey, sir, put on your SPF. 70 fucking sunscreen. I see. I see how fucking pale you are.
I'm gonna try and get some sun today. Thank you for having me come on the program, Chris. The main thing for everybody is these are complicated things. If you don't understand them, there's a lot of resources available. You should learn about this case. This is the most important case that I have ever experienced in my life. And that includes a lot of stuff we've seen in the last few years. This is going to be very important. And the more that we talk about and share our thoughts, the better it is for everybody in our democracy. This is a full contact sport. Understand what you're playing against and understand the rules, and you're going to be doing just fine. So thank you for having me on, Chris. I appreciate it.
We have a great constitutional republic that we live in, ladies and gentlemen. That will be it for today. We will be back tomorrow. We got a shipper coming on the show tomorrow, you guys, because we're going to answer your sales questions out there. I got a couple, but if you guys want any of them answered live, drop them in the chat tomorrow or dm them over to me. Everything's anonymous on here. I don't, you know, I'm not going to air anybody's dirty laundry. If you want to remain anonymous, we will do that. As always, if you guys got value in what you heard, subscribe to the show, ladies and gentlemen, share that out there. Because if you see value, your network's going to see value as well. I appreciate you guys. I love you guys. And we'll be talking to you soon.
You should have came in with.