SCOTUS Overturns 'Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To 'Administrative State’

In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the so-called 'Chevron Deference’ dealing a huge blow to the so-called 'administrative state’ that have enjoyed

In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended a 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking.

As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.

Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.

This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more.

The move hands a major victory to conservative and anti-regulatory interests that have looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the growing size of the “administrative state.”

The Biden administration defended the precedent before the high court.

As Mark Joseph Stern writes on X:

„Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the 'administrative state’, the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. „

„The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations.„

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron „defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.

He said it „requires a court to ignore, not follow, 'the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.'”

Further, he said it „is misguided” because „agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

The liberals on the court are not happy:

„In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority „disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making „a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing „large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified.”

As Stern concludes:

„Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.”

Simply put, a massive win for the constitution…

Wow, this is a big deal for addressing overreaching regulation!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2024

The decision comes one day after the Supreme Court curtailed federal agencies’ use of administrative law judges in another blow to the administrative state.

Read the full decision below: