Correcting the law, the "law", the """law""", and culture.
A rambling thread.
Suppose Congress passes a law, and it's not 100% clear.
Then the courts will interpret it.
Suppose that Congress doesn't like the interpretation.
They can pass another law clarifying how the first law should be interpreted.
This happens all the time.
Suppose that an executive branch administrator pens a letter of intent, that says they interpret the law a certain way.
Now this isn't actually _binding_, but it's a strong indicator of how you'll be treated.
Maybe you can get the courts to reverse it.
If it's even adjudicable by the courts!
Lots of laws are enforced by withholding of funds. You may not even have standing to sue!
Can a legislature pass a law to overturn an administrative letter?
It's not clear.
Suppose an administrative agency is tasked with setting and enforcing standards. And you don't like the standards they've set.
Can the court overturn the standards?
No.
This is called Chevron Deference, the principal that the court must defer to agency interpretations.
But Chevron has been applied inconsistently. Every sitting supreme court justice has argued at least once that Chevron doesn't apply in a certain circumstance.
Can you pass a law to overturn an administrative policy?
Yes. Or at least to clarify the law that the agency must apply.
But then the legislature is down in the details.
They're sure trying to.
You could make it illegal to do the trending thing.
Sometimes it's hard to target such a thing with the law that doesn't either hit lots of other stuff, or allow them to make a minor tweak and continue on.
Suppose a trend picks up amongst professionals as to how their profession should be practiced.
And suppose other people with skin in the game don't like it.
Can you pass a law to overturn a trend?