In this episode of The Crude Truth, host Rey Treviño is joined by David Blackmon and Sarah Falen to discuss the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Chevron’s deference and its impact on various sectors, including agriculture and oil and gas. Sarah provides a detailed explanation of the 30 by 30 initiative, also known as the America the Beautiful Initiative, highlighting its potential to limit land use and economic production. The conversation delves into the role of stare decisis in maintaining legal consistency, the importance of judicial independence, and the potential consequences of shifting political administrations on agency regulations.

David emphasizes the need for a clear separation of powers among the three branches of government and the significance of Congressional oversight in regulating agencies. Sarah discusses the importance of precise legislative language and the dangers of broad laws that grant excessive power to agencies. The episode concludes with an optimistic outlook on the future, encouraging listeners to stay informed and engaged in understanding the legal and regulatory landscape.

Highlights of the Podcast

01:36 – Guest Introductions
05:45 – Discussion on Chevron Deference
08:11 – Impacts of Chevron Deference Reversal
12:14 – Positive Changes Expected
15:09 – Oil and Gas Industry Perspective
17:22 – Judicial and Legal Processes
21:32 – Discussion on 30 by 30 Initiative
24:41 – Implications of the Initiative
27:46 – Judicial Perspectives and the Chevron Deference
32:40 – The Role of Agencies and Congress
34:35 – Closing Thoughts and Guest Contributions
40:21 – Final Remarks

Please reach out to Sarah Falen Fate on LinkedIn

COWGIRL 30 Under 30

Please reach out to David Blackmon on LinkedIn

David Blackmon

Check out StatusJet HERE

THE CRUDE TRUTH Ep. 94 Sarah Falen Fate and David Blackmon

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

THE CRUDE TRUTH Ep. 94 Sarah Falen Fate and David Blackmon

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

Rey Treviño [00:00:00] Well, it’s no joke. It’s such an amazing time in the United States, and I kid you not. With the Supreme Court ruling that came down last week, it’s just so awesome that I think America’s headed in the right direction. We talked to two experts on this episode of The Crude Truth.

Narrator [00:00:18] In 1901 at Spindletop Hill near Beaumont. The future of Texas changed dramatically as, like a fountain of fortune, thousands of barrels of oil burst from the earth towards the sky. Soon, Detroit would be cranking out Model TS by the millions, and America was on the move thanks to the black gold being produced in Texas. Now, more than a century later, the vehicles are different, but nothing else has truly changed. Sure, there may be many other alternative energy sources like wind and solar and electric. But let’s be honest. America depends on oil and entrepreneurs. And if the USA is truly going to be independent, it has to know the Crude Truth.

Narrator [00:01:01] This episode is brought to you by LFS chemistry. We are committed to being good stewards of the environment. We are providing the tools so you can be too. Nape Expo where deals happen. Air compressor solutions. When everything is on the line, Air Compressor Solutions is the dependable choice to keep commercial business powered up. Sandstone Group. Exec Crue, Elevate your network. Elevate your knowledge. Texas Star Alliance. Pecos country Operating. Fueling our future.

Rey Treviño [00:01:36] Okay, well, hello and thank you again, as always, for tuning in to another episode of The Crude Truth. I’m just so excited today. As you can see, I have on two nationally recognized names and their faces on this zoom special edition of The Crude Truth. As I kind of mentioned in our teaser, kind of just mentioning the Supreme Court and some of the rulings that have come down, and the one that’s just been really exciting and I think motivating should be for at least half America, was the Chevron deference that came down last Friday or so, I think maybe two Fridays ago from this coming Friday. And today I’ve got on just two experts that know that inside and out. And, you know, as an oil and gas operator, I’m very excited about it. So today I’ve brought back on actually, one of my co-host of three podcasters and one of the best article writers there is out there, David Blackmon. David, how are you?

David Blackmon [00:02:32] I’m great, and thank you for not calling me a journalist. I really appreciate.

Rey Treviño [00:02:36] It. You guys did well and also is another returning guest to The Crude Truth. Wasn’t able to get her out here, unfortunately on the crude truth private jet quickly enough. But coming from Wyoming, the one the only professor Sarah Falen. Sarah, how are you?

Sarah Falen [00:02:53] I’m great. Thank you. Thank you for having me. And it’s okay. Next time, I’ll catch the jet.

Rey Treviño [00:02:58] Okay. Well, thank you so much. And I know it was kind of a world when to get you on. I was like, hey, can you get on this day? And you were branding cattle, by the way. And how fun was that the last week before July 4th.

Sarah Falen [00:03:10] That’s, you know, it’s it makes it a really busy time of year. We do typically brand on our ranch north of Cheyenne, Wyoming. We typically brand right around the fourth. And so that’s just sort of a yearly a yearly thing for us. But it’s always a lot of fun, lots of roping, and it’s a big community event and always a good time.

Rey Treviño [00:03:30] Okay, so it is, which is what I was going to ask you, because obviously a lot of us watch that Yellowstone show and they make it into a big deal on the show. So I was going to ask you, is it a pretty big deal? Because you see the show, the community comes together and everybody comes in like that.

Sarah Falen [00:03:46] Yeah, I would say in, okay, so if I had a dollar for every time somebody asked me if my life was just like Yellowstone, the show, I could just retire. But at least at our place, it is it is kind of like that around where I live. We still do the big roping and dragging and all the neighbors come to help. And so we we take turns and we go help the neighbors. There’s quite a few ranchers who don’t do it like that anymore but are still does that.

Rey Treviño [00:04:10] Awesome. That is just too awesome. Well, the reason I wanted to get you on is one you got a law degree, you’re teaching students, and you’re practicing everything that you’re preaching in the world world still today, as we kind of talked about in the past, and I wanted to jump on today and talk to you both about that Chevron difference that came down in Sierra real quick. For everybody out there that may not know who you are, can you just give them a quick 32nd, elevator pitch about who you are and why? I think you’re one of the best out there.

Sarah Falen [00:04:41] Sure. I guess I don’t know why you think I’m the best, but my my background. I’m a sixth generation Wyoming ranch kid. Both of my parents are actually attorneys, and they specifically represent farmers and ranchers. I wanted to follow in their footsteps. I got my law degree here a few years ago. And then, rather than practicing traditionally, I really work at trying to educate the public about laws that impact specifically agriculture, but also other natural resources. So oil, gas, renewables, water thing, things like that. And now I teach agriculture law at the University of Wyoming.

Rey Treviño [00:05:22] And, you know, that’s that’s what I meant by you practice like you’re, you’re you’re fighting, you’re you’re writing stuff for, if I’m correct, for Washington, DC, I mean, you’ve been there testifying if I’m correct at some places. And so that’s what I mean by you are practicing what you what you’ve gone. Learned and then you’re sharing that knowledge. So thank you again so much.

Sarah Falen [00:05:43] And thank you for having me.

Rey Treviño [00:05:45] Well David, again you know I know it’s been a hot topic, but let’s dive into the Chevron deference, if you don’t mind, sir.

David Blackmon [00:05:51] Well, sure Sarah. So I you know, your the video you posted on LinkedIn about this was just terrific. And it’s it’s a real tutorial that I think, you know, pretty much everyone can understand and gives a really great overview of what this decision means and what it doesn’t mean. And one of the points you make in that video is about the separation of powers, and why the reversal of the Chevron deference and the low power decision really is not a violation of the separation of powers. And I think it’s a great part point to to start, you know, by asking you about that, to explain why the reversal of this doctrine that was put in place by the courts 40 years ago is not in any way truly a violation of separation of powers.

Sarah Falen [00:06:37] Sure. One of the things that I find myself explaining all the time is, you know, most Americans do know that we have three branches of government, and that’s a great start. But a lot of people don’t actually know what jobs those individual three branches has. And that’s what the separation of powers refers to is the the three separate jobs of our branches of government. So we have for for those listening, we have the executive branch, which is the president and his executive agencies. The executive agencies are, you know, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, Forest Service. Those are the main ones that I work with. And then you have Congress, which is the legislative branch, the Senate and the House. They are supposed to be writing the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws. And then you have the judicial branch, and that is the court system. And so that’s all of the judges. That’s really what, you know, this decision has to do with both the executive branch and the judicial branch. And the judges are supposed to be interpreting the laws to make sure that the laws that Congress writes, adheres and complies to the US Constitution. And so that’s what the three branches are supposed to do. And under Chevron, two of the branches got really blurred because in that decision, the court had decided back in 85 or 84 maybe that that agencies, the executive agencies are the experts in the field. And people just want to assume that the government is never wrong. And in my experience, the government is wrong, like all the time.

David Blackmon [00:08:11] All the time. Yes.

Sarah Falen [00:08:12] And so they are writing regulations to help with the enforcement of Congress’s laws. But then in the court system, under the Chevron deference, you could not challenge the agencies because the judges were forced to give deference or preference to the agencies based on the regulations that they’re writing. So rather than the courts being able to interpret the decision and decide if they are complying with the laws in the Constitution, they just had to side with the government just because they’re the government, whether or not they were complying with law or not.

Rey Treviño [00:08:48] Right.

David Blackmon [00:08:49] Yeah. And that that was and of course, you know, it’s so interesting to me. I’m not a lawyer, by the way, obviously. But it’s it’s really interesting to me too, because this is reflective of a constant tension between the three branches of government. And when you look back at what was happening in 1984, when John Paul Stevens wrote that decision, in that case involving Chevron, you had a situation where the Republicans were very concerned about judges legislating from the bench. Right. And so the whole point of that decision in the court case was to rein in an out-of-control judiciary. And now here we are, 40 years later, the administrative state has grown exponentially, but largely because it’s been enabled to by the Chevron deference. And so now you have this concern about a bloated bureaucracy and the executive branch. Do we do we run the danger now that Chevron’s been been reversed 40 years from now, coming back again with an out of out of control judiciary, right? I mean, isn’t that just reflective of the constant tension in the federal system?

Sarah Falen [00:09:55] I think so, and so one of the things that I’ve been asked quite a bit and has been brought up is people I say unelected federal bureaucrats have been writing these regulations, that our regulations are not the same as laws, but they do have the same force and effect of laws. And so every time a regulation is written, which all of these agencies, the people running them, are appointed by the president at that time. And so when agencies write regulations, there are huge policy swings from the regulations that are written. And so you look at the policies between the Obama administration to the Trump administration, to the Biden administration, that’s obviously a huge difference. And so one of the things that people say is, well, judges are unelected, federal. Eurocrats too. So it’s just one group of federal bureaucrats writing laws, or another group of federal bureaucrats writing laws. And. And my response has been, yeah, but only one of those federal bureaucrats has permission from article three of the US Constitution to be interpreting those laws. And so it really, I, I, I think that all three branches of government have the ability to be very bloated and very, you know, overstepping, in my opinion, what the Constitution tells them to do. I think that happens all the time. Federal overreach. But I’ve seen firsthand a lot of problems that having these executive agencies overregulate the problems that are causing in all industries, definitely the agriculture industry.

Rey Treviño [00:11:21] Yeah. You know, I want to I want to kind of I’m going to ask you both the same question with a little bit different. And, Sarah, since you brought up the agriculture, we’re going to go there first with the Chevron deference, you know, what are some of the things that you I’m going to say that you’re going to expect to see the difference and maybe things changing more for the positive. Because as you mentioned, it’s like this Chevron deference gave preference to the actual agencies like the EPA and other other groups, like you said, the Fish and Wildlife, which you would think nine times out of ten, are there really just to conserve and be safe. You know, it’s like I’ve always said on, on, on my other shows is, hey, all these agencies did great things. They just again, like y’all are all bull saying got bloated. So getting back to the question is, you know, where do you see some positivity coming into this from the ranching agricultural side over the next 5 to 10 years?

Sarah Falen [00:12:14] Oh, absolutely. I think the very best example is the Endangered Species Act. And the Endangered Species Act is one of those laws that I know the oil and gas, the energy industries, agriculture, we all struggle with it. That is one of those laws that I think had really good intentions, but has absolutely been weaponized against the industries. And one of the places that I think this is such a good example is I work with a group called Perfect Balance. Their farmers and ranchers out in Oregon and in Oregon, they have the Oregon spotted frog. And this spotted frog has been endangered for more more than ten years. And they just got a recovery plan written just in the last couple of years. It took more than a decade for them to get this recovery plan written. And the reason that the frog population is declining is because of a bigger, stronger frog species that is out competing the Oregon spotted frog. And it’s eating the spotted frogs eggs. It’s, you know, taking up all the habitat. And so rather than recognizing that and then doing anything to control this bigger frog, what they have done is shut off the irrigation water to the farmers and ranchers in Oregon. And so you have these farmers and ranchers that are paying for their water, by the way, they’re still paying the full amount, but they’re only receiving 25% of the water that they’re paying for. Oh, wow. And so you have all these farmers and ranchers going out of business. And where Chevron plays into this is we would be able to sue over this recovery plan that is not working, but for the fact that it is us against the Fish and Wildlife Service. And so the courts have to side with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And under this new decision, Looper, the right decision, we have the ability. We’re actually going to talk with those clients later today. We now have the ability and possibly a legal, legal avenue where we could sue and have the court determine whether or not the agency is actually complying with what Congress intended them to do. And so we think that examples like that is a really positive way to impact agriculture, because right now we’re just we we just have to do whatever the agency says, whether it’s right or wrong or violating law or violating Congress’s intent specifically. And now we have the ability to challenge them and make some real differences. And for some of these people who are just trying to feed the world, feeding the world shouldn’t be controversial. But apparently it is, apparently.

Rey Treviño [00:14:54] Yeah. Apparently. Yeah. And now, David, I hope, hopefully Sarah didn’t take your thunder with the Endangered Species Act. But same question to you with the Chevron deference. Where do you see the oil and gas industry going here over the next 5 to 10 years with this, with this new ruling?

David Blackmon [00:15:09] Well, quite honestly, that was going to be my next question. You know, about the essay because it is such a huge issue. I mean, Sarah, you have the the sage grouse issue that’s been plaguing your state for 25 years. We’ve got the down Sagebrush Leisure down in Texas, in West Texas, in the middle of the Permian Basin. This lizard exists everywhere by the millions, millions and millions. And but the heat, you know, the fish and wildlife decided to list them under the USA is endangered. Due to the diminishing habitat interpretation, you know, and of course, I’m sure. Center for Biological Diversity and the other activist groups are pushing this frog listing in Oregon, just as they’ve done with the Dune Sagebrush Coalition. And they have created this cottage industry, these 2 or 3 really radical left wing activist groups forcing fish and wildlife into these listings, you know, under diminishing habitat. And so I think that, you know, what the reversal of the Chevron deference does is create an opportunity, just like just like you said, Sarah, for companies or individuals with real standing who really who can prove they’re being damaged by this interpretation of the ESR to at least challenge the agency’s interpretation in court and whether or not it’s outside the intent and the language in the Endangered Species Act. And I think pretty clearly it is. I mean, if you just read the the language in the Endangered Species Act, there’s little question that listings like these are well outside of what Congress intended. Yes. So yeah, but my other question for Sarah. Yes, the next one I have on my long list is about Massachusetts, the EPA, the 2007 case that enabled EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, the foundational element in the atmosphere for all life on planet Earth as a pollutant. And what you think is that an operating? Because I’ve been asked a lot, and it seems to me that there is a similar opportunity to challenge that case now for for companies or people who can demonstrate they’ve been damaged by that decision. And I wonder if I’m just off base on that.

Sarah Falen [00:17:22] Well, I think it’s, you know, with any of the big cases that have been decided with Chevron as its deciding basis, one of the things it’s going to vary greatly depend on the situation and the facts that you have and the damages that you can prove. Because I think one of the big confusions about Chevron is, is, number one, people think that all of the regulations that were decided with Chevron as the siting basis are just going to go away. And that’s that’s not true. That’s not how law works. You can’t just like retroactively apply a law like this. And then the second thing is you still not everybody can challenge for anything. You still have to meet standing requirements. You still have. To me it’s there’s two kind of complex issues issue preclusion and claim preclusion, which basically says that if there’s already a decision that’s about the same facts, you can’t have the same parties with the same facts bringing the same case. And so you still have to jump through a lot of those legal loopholes. And so I think, you know, in the example that you you gave, it’s absolutely possible to challenge, you know, if you if you have the right facts and if you can prove the right damages, and if you have standing in court, and a lot of people think that you can just sue for anything and you really can’t, you have to. You have to be able to meet these basic thresholds to be able to go to court. And so it’s going to absolutely depend on the individual and what their what their specific situation is.

David Blackmon [00:18:50] Yeah. And it’s going to take years. Right. I mean any for any of this to percolate up through the courts and it’s a point I’ve tried to make is broadly as I can, that any of this is going to take years, because you have to start at the district court and go up through the Court of Appeals, eventually Supreme Court. And and then a lot of it is also going to depend on how strongly the government, depending on who is president at the time, is willing to go to the mat to defend the government’s position in the case. And, you know, this election in November could have a big impact on the interest the government has in defending some of these regulations. So it’s it just seems to me that we’re in a very uncertain time with all of this.

Sarah Falen [00:19:31] It’s certainly going to take a lot of work. I think you one of the things that people are really misinformed about is I think that people understand Chevron being overturned. So that saying that the government is automatically going to lose now, you know, and that’s not the case. You know, the judges are supposed to be looking at the laws, at the regulations, at the decisions and then determining if they comply with law and if the agency if the court finds that the agency complied with law, then they’re still going to side with the agency. You know, all this does is put, you know, the little guy on the same playing field. And a lot of people are concerned. You, you know, you mentioned the government’s interest in coming to the mat and how hard they want to fight for their decisions. A lot of people have said to me, well, now just big corporations are with a lot of money are going to be able to defend. And really what I think is, is the government has a lot more money and resources than most anybody else out there anyway. And, you know, the folks that I’m concerned with certainly don’t have unlimited money and resources. And so I think that, you know, the. Ability to go to the mat and defend their decisions is a lot stronger than people think. And then you also have to look at this in different jurisdictions. So, you know, for example, the ninth Circuit Court is a federal federal district is extremely liberal. And a lot of times they’re going to side with the government anyway because that’s just typically what happens. And so you have to have the right facts. You have to be in the right jurisdiction. It’s going to take years no matter what. And so people the the headlines, when you look up, you know, Chevron deference being overruled are actually really funny because they make it sound like the world is imminently ending and all of our water is going to be poisoned. And and somebody commented, now they could put lead in Lunchables. And I’m like, what are you talking about? That’s you know, those kinds of changes are not they’re not going to happen. You’re not going to be able to put lead in any food. And they’re certainly not happening overnight.

David Blackmon [00:21:31] Yeah. Yeah.

Rey Treviño [00:21:32] And I agree that, you know, none of this is going to be overnight. And that’s always like, hey, over the next 5 to 10 years where do you see this going? But I also do agree that, hey, the playing fields are going to be leveled a little bit more, because that’s always been one of my, I guess, standpoints. And you know, David’s heard heard me say this before, Sarah is, you know, if I go decide to drill in West Texas somewhere and all of a sudden the EPA comes out and goes, oh, you have an aunt that you like, the little insect that’s endangered, that’s going to stop me from drilling. And I’m like, oh, great, the EPA’s come out. This is an endangered species. I’m done. Or they use Endangered Species Act whatever. But somebody like Chevron or Exxon, they’re going to go higher five biologists and do their best to prove why that’s not like that at least. So yes, I do agree that, you know, over time, this does give us a little bit more of a playing field, keeping it simmering within the realm of politics. I kind of want to touch base, Sarah. And if you can explain what the 30 by 30 is and no, that’s not an ESPN show. Correct?

Sarah Falen [00:22:34] No, it’s it’s not. And and you know, it has a couple of names. It’s also called the America the Beautiful Initiative. And what that is, is a Biden executive order from, you know, the one of the many, many that he wrote in his first week in office. Actually, I think this one was maybe like within the first couple of days that he was in office. And that is the administration’s goal to conserve 30% of our land and water in its natural state by the year 2030. And when they started that the federal government was going to have to add an additional 440 million acres to what they already own. And a lot of people look at that and say, oh, you know, conserving our land and water, you know, 30%. That seems reasonable. But the reason that it’s not reasonable is because it takes all of that land nearly completely out of production, because of the requirements that the land has to be conserved in its natural state. And one of the requirements is that you can’t have the main purpose of the land be economic production. And so that’s going to kick off the majority of grazing. It’s going to kick off the majority of oil and gas production of any energy production, including renewables. You know, everybody thinks that renewables have no environmental impact. And that’s not true. So no no renewables. You can’t you can have recreation, but not if it’s recreation that is like economic for a specific person. And so that is one of those lofty environmental goals that is, in my opinion, a land grab. And you guys down in Texas, you have a lot of private property. And at where I live, there’s a lot of public lands already, and the uses are already fairly strict on what you can and can’t do on those lands. And the public lands that already exist largely don’t count towards this goal. And so it’s taking up more private property to be able to achieve this goal, which puts states like Texas and and really any of the, you know, Midwest, eastern states more at risk.

David Blackmon [00:24:41] And so what everyone needs to know about that. 440 what do you say, 440 million acres.

Sarah Falen [00:24:47] A million acres.

David Blackmon [00:24:49] So that is 155% the size of the state of Texas. State of Texas is about 270 million acres. So think about that, folks. This is this is an enormous land grant. I mean, it’s just it’s just unimaginable almost. So it’s a big deal. What? So let’s go to star decisis, because Justice Roberts, as you pointed out in your video on LinkedIn, made a point, went out of his way to make the point that all these regulations that have been put in place under Chevron deference a while it’s been in effect, would still be subject to the the legal doctrine of starry decisis. And I know Clarence Thomas no. Gorsuch in his decision actually disputed a little bit of that in his concurring decision. But I wonder what your view is, because, I mean, I look at that and I think. Well, you know, starry decisis was absolute. Roe v Wade would still be the law of the land. And so it’s not an absolute doctrine. But I wonder what your view is on just how flexible that might become.

Sarah Falen [00:25:50] You know, I think it’s really going to depend. So for those who don’t know, starry decisis is a legal doctrine that basically says that courts have to give weight to issues decided before. And so in these decisions where, you know, agency decisions have been upheld, you know, Justice Roberts said. And I found the page and I keep quoting it to people because everyone keeps arguing with me, saying that’s not what the decision says. But on page 34 of Justice Roberts decision, it says that to previous agency decisions, including Chevron itself, you know, are subject to stare decisis. So if those same issues are brought to court, it is possible that they are overturned. It is also possible that the courts say, because of the weight that we give to previous judges, having upheld these agency decisions, that we are still going to uphold this decision. And so that’s still, you know, if you’re looking at it as a scale, puts a little bit of weight on the agency’s side. And so, you know, if you look at I looked at the Supreme Court numbers and it’s something like 200 and and something I don’t remember the exact number. Now, cases have ever been completely overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court takes up like 150 cases a year. And so that’s a very, very small amount of cases that actually get overturned. I think that’s overturned on a smaller level. Not every case is going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And every issue is not going that goes to the court is not going to be exactly the same. And so when you’re overturning an issue, it’s when the same issue is brought to court. And so a lot of the lawsuits that I think we’re going to see, you know, that’s challenging agency decisions that were made under Chevron are going to be over slightly different issues. And so that’s not technically going to be an overturn. It’s going to be a new issue. Decided.

David Blackmon [00:27:46] Yeah. Yeah. So interesting. It’s also complex and interesting to me.

Rey Treviño [00:27:50] Yeah. No I mean and that’s why I asked both of y’all to come on. I mean, I love how you said I want to kind of go back to the beginning, Sarah, because you said when the Supreme Court has seen things in its waiting, what does that mean? Like, let me let me go back there. What does it mean to be a weighted issue.

Sarah Falen [00:28:06] So that just means that they look at, you know, so the judges are not experts in any technical area of law. So the way that the court cases work is the agency is going to bring their experts and whoever the opposing party is, is going to bring their experts and the judges look at all of the evidence and then make a decision. And when I say that it’s going to be weighted, I mean that if the same issue is brought in court, the judge is going to look at all of the evidence. And then another factor they’re going to look at is what judges before them decided. And looking at that and basically saying, okay, well, previous judges thought that this was in accordance with law. Why did they think it was in accordance with law? You know, should I also be deciding in the same way? Yeah. And so it’s just an additional factor that they look at among all of the other evidence presented to them during the court case.

Rey Treviño [00:28:57] You know, I will say this in the way that you, you know, you’ve been able to read directly from the from the decision from Judge Justice Roberts and the way that you guys have explained it, the sky is not falling. You know, from where I sit as an operator in the oil and gas industry and, and we’ve as I’ve told you guys, you know, many a time I’m not an expert in many things, but, you know, you would think that the sky is falling to have the world with this decision. And the way, Sarah, you said it was, hey, the judges are going to sit there and they’re going to go. This judge looked at it and thought this why did they should I? And then they’re going to go make another decision. And it sounds like they’re using a lot of common sense. And again, I’m not a Supreme Court justice expert, but I like to think that all nine of those Supreme Court justices do that at this time. You know, and I mean, all nine of them sit there and they do this, you know, kind of bringing in politics into it. Not every single decision that has been either not overturned or overturned didn’t. Not all the newest justices agreed with what the former president probably thought as well. So I do think there is still a lot of independence. And I’m glad also how at the top of the show, we talked about how this ruling helps continue to separate the three branches of government. And Sarah, thank you for even describing those again, because I don’t know what they’re teaching anymore in school. And, you know, there’s been so much overstep with the executive branch to where just in the last 20 years or, you know, 15 years. Years, 20 years. Executive decisions have really run rampant through every administration. And again, like you were saying, you know, what happens with this next election is going to also show where we go over the next few years, whether it’s in ranching, in agriculture, or oil and gas, in trying to get some of these formal rulings overturned. So again, you know, and David, thank you all. Just both so much for everything that you’ve been able to share today. Oh, it’s a lot.

Sarah Falen [00:31:07] I Think the one of the the things that people don’t understand when they are acting like the sky is falling, you know, over this decision, is that, you know, a lot of those people who think that right now the administration is in their favor, you know, and so all of the agency officials have been, you know, most of them, anyway, have been appointed by the Biden administration. And, you know, and they say the agencies are the experts, agencies or the experts, while the agencies were appointed by the president. So, you know, he’s going to appoint people not who are necessarily just experts in their field, but, you know, people who are experienced in the field and also tend to agree with the president. And so what happens when the next president, you know, whoever, whoever it is, maybe it’s this election, maybe it’s the next election. But when it’s an administration that you disagree with, you know, are you going to feel the same way that, you know, if if Trump is elected, are you going to feel the same way that the agencies that he appoints, you know, the officials for the agencies? Do you still feel like they are the experts, or do you have, you know, political differences and think that now they are less qualified because they are going to tend to agree with President Trump? And so I think that that is one of the things that makes this better, where the judges are interpreting the laws because they don’t switch all the time like the agencies do. And just because you favor the agencies right now does not mean in the next four years you’re still going to favor them because they change so quickly.

David Blackmon [00:32:40] What it all boils down to is it’s very important for our three branches of government to all assert their constitutional duties and authorities the way they’re supposed to be asserted, and not just willy nilly sacrifice them to another branch of government. And unfortunately, what is is really enabled, another factor that’s really enabled the administrative state to grow. So to such a bloated level is because Congress gave up. It essentially gave up its oversight powers when it stopped doing budget bills 20 years ago and started funding the government on these continuing resolution. So, you know, I mean, Congress’s main authority in oversight is controlling the budgets of these agencies. And when you just roll it all into a continuing resolution that has an automatic inflation factor in it, every year, you’ve lost that authority. So another positive thing, I think it’s really another positive thing that that the current Republican majority in the House is really making a concerted effort this year to pass all 12 budget authorization bills as a separate thing rather than a CR. So we’ll we’ll see how that goes.

Sarah Falen [00:33:45] I agree, I think that the other thing that Congress has done is they tend to write laws, as my mom would say, so that you can drive a mack truck straight. You know, they are extremely broad. And then in those laws, that’s where they give specific agencies the authority to make regulations regarding a certain law. And so when they write these laws so broad and they just kind of throw everything in there, now, you see, you know, provisions all the time that are hidden in a specific law. And it doesn’t even make sense to be there. But they write the provisions so broad that it gives the agency that they’ve given authority to, to write regulations almost unfettered power, because they get to interpret. Well, they don’t they’re not supposed to be interpreting. Right. That’s the court’s job. But they get to write regulations to help clarify Congress’s laws at such a great amount.

Rey Treviño [00:34:35] Wow, I like that. That was I like, I like that metaphor that your mom uses, and it makes total sense. I mean, you just shared some, dare I say, the crude truth on on why these laws are so broad and how these different agencies then interpret those and create the regulations within that law. That’s that’s scary. Ingenious all at the same time. You lawyers are slick there. You lawyers are slick.

David Blackmon [00:35:00] Hey, one last point.

Sarah Falen [00:35:01] I always say that everybody hates lawyers, and I’m allowed to say that because I have a law degree, but it’s because they’re sneaky.

David Blackmon [00:35:07] Yeah, well, one last point on that particular topic is the good news about all this is when you go and actually read the Endangered Species Act, which was written in 69 or 70, 73. Yeah, it’s not like that. The Endangered Species Act is pretty clear and specific about what it’s authorizing these agencies to do. And so, you know, it’s not it’s not like the the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in 2022. So there’s a lot of opportunity there where the USA is concerned, I think.

Sarah Falen [00:35:37] I think so too. And that’s one of the things about, you know, this current Supreme Court. You know, we saw it with the waters of the U.S. decision that, you know, came out recently, several several months ago, where I think that the Supreme Court realizes that the agencies have had, you know, so much power, and they’re saying agencies your job is not to write law. It is to help enforce the law. And I think that there really, you know, honestly, I think I said in a video one time they’re taking a machete to Congress and saying, this is your job. You need to be writing the laws. You need to be putting your intent. It is not the agency’s job to write the laws. And unfortunately, in the last several decades, that’s what the agencies have started doing.

Rey Treviño [00:36:21] Yeah. Wow. Well, you know, David, I want to I want to give you the opportunity, please, to go ahead and ask Sarah one more question if you would like to serve.

David Blackmon [00:36:29] Man, I’m pretty much exhausted on the questions. These these are the questions over top of my mind. And I want what I would like to do is really thank Sarah for taking the time with us today, because I’ve learned so much in this half hour or so that we’ve been talking, and it’s really going to help me be a little smarter on all this in the future. So I really appreciate it.

Sarah Falen [00:36:50] Well thank you. Thank you so much for having me. I’m very passionate about, you know, specifically, you know, agriculture and then constitutional law. And so I love digging into these decisions and talking about the implications and going, I’m a I’ve been carrying a US Constitution on my person since I was 12. So I think everybody knew what I was going to do with my life from a very young age. And so I’m just excited when things go in our favor, which is starting to happen more often under this Supreme Court, but hadn’t happened in a long time. So it’s an exciting time for me to be really. It’s still the beginning of my career.

Rey Treviño [00:37:30] You know, Sarah, you you mentioned there that last the water act, you know, are you it seems like you are paying attention to a lot of these court cases as they come down. And I just want to say that from my outside looking in to anybody out there that’s looking to to work with you, that is awesome. The amount of knowledge that you’re able to decipher and go through and you’re looking for. So I think that’s awesome.

Sarah Falen [00:37:54] Well, I think that that’s why you have to make a career out of looking through that information, because I, you know, I try really hard to tell people to be educated and do their own research. But I spend a lot of hours every day reading the court cases and the Federal Register, which is where all the regulations are published. And, and most people have to, you know, do things like feed the world and produce, produce oil and keep us like, you know, in Wyoming, keep our homes heated and stuff like that. So I’m happy to do it because it’s very time consuming and we need people doing other more important things.

Rey Treviño [00:38:26] So I well, I think both of you guys are doing very important things. You know, David continues to fight for the oil and gas industry on a daily basis. You know, David, for everybody out there, you know, where can they find your readings? You know, because you’re on Forbes, you’re on the Daily Caller. What else? Where else are you these days?

David Blackmon [00:38:43] Well, I mean, it’s really simple. With me, you can find everything I do at the, the, my Substack, which is blackmon.substack.com and just go there and and it’s all there.

Rey Treviño [00:38:54] But but you know, what I wanted to say was again that, you know, you are fighting for the oil and gas industry on a daily and then to have Sarah on today who, you know, one, you are just so versed in the the world of what is a good regulation and what’s not. And then so for you to be able to go from agriculture to oil and gas, you know, like that is awesome, but you’re fighting for the farmers and the ranchers. And who would have ever thought, like you’ve said many times, that we got to have people to fight for us to have food everyday on the table. So I just cannot thank you enough for what you’re doing out there, Sarah.

Sarah Falen [00:39:28] And thank you. Thank you so much for for having me. And and, you know, I always tell people I could talk about these issues a lot longer than anybody wants to listen. So I appreciate it when somebody comes in and says, we’ve got 30 minutes, let’s discuss the topic. And, you know, just it keeps keeps sharing the information because I think it’s so important for everybody to know kind of what’s going on.

Rey Treviño [00:39:49] It is. And how can people get in contact and follow you and learn more about things from you?

Sarah Falen [00:39:55] I, I, I’m on all the big social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn just under my name, Sarah Falen. Last name is spelled A L E N and can reach out to me there. I work part time for my folks law firm doing, you know, research and education and outreach and stuff like that. So you can also find me at their law firm. Contact Bud Falen.com.

Rey Treviño [00:40:21] I love it. Well guys, again just thank you all so much. And to all our listeners out there, you know, hopefully today we got a little bit more education on the Chevron deference and how important it is to truly have that separation of powers. And like Sarah said, and even like I said at the beginning, there’s. Exciting things happening in America. You know, this is the greatest place on, on, on the planet. And, just because today may be a little rough doesn’t mean tomorrow is going to be awesome. So just thank you all so much and we’ll see you again on another episode of The Crude Truth.

Narrator [00:40:52] Again, the Crude Truth would like to thank today’s sponsors. LFS Chemistry, Nape Expo, Air Compressor Solutions, Sandstone Group, Exec Crue, Texas Star Alliance, Pecos Country Operating, and Real News Communication Network.

Narrator [00:41:12] The easiest way to start your own podcast and TV show. Real News Communications Network stand out from your competition produced streams of high quality social media content. Become a thought leader in your industry. With RNCN, you get to be the host. We handle everything else or one of our three locations in Dallas, Fort Worth and the colony. Call (972) 402-6333 or visit. Launch a show. Com to find out more.