alt Hacker News> More broadly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution imposes important limits on Congress’s ability to influence or control the actions of officers once they are appointed.
No they did the opposite when they overruled Chevron. They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive.
This of course lays the whole thing bare. When it comes to regulating markets or companies, or minority rights, conservatives think the president has no power. But when it comes to immigration or Christian social issues, the president is all powerful. This translates into laughable double standards like "the Biden admin even sending a single email to Twitter is pressure and censorship, but Trump suing media organization after media organization for defamation to the tune of billions of dollars is not pressure and not censorship". None of this is principled; it's entirely us vs them.
> They said Congress cannot delegate that amount of its plenary power to the executive.
That wasn't the conclusion of the decision that overturned Chevron. You can read the decision here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Overturning Chevron only impacted the purview of the courts. It changed nothing with regards to Congress delegating power to the executive - Congress can continue to do so.
All it does is make ambiguity in the law the responsibility of the courts to decide, not the executive.
But Congress can still pass a vague law that says "a new agency X will regulate this product in order to protect public safety". The executive can then interpret what "protect public safety" means, but if challenges, the courts won't defer to the agency for the interpretation any more.