Summary

The Supreme Court has significantly reduced the powers of federal agencies by overturning the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that allowed these agencies to interpret laws they regulate. This 6–3 decision means courts will no longer defer to agencies' expertise on ambiguous laws, shifting this responsibility to judges. Chief Justice Roberts assured that previous rulings based on the Chevron doctrine remain valid, but future regulations may face new legal challenges. This ruling is seen as a victory for legal conservatives aiming to limit the influence of unelected bureaucrats.

‍

For those who read...

Good morning political people, and welcome to today’s episode of Current2 Politics! I’m your host, Jake, and today we are discussing how the Supreme Court just absolutely eviscerated the power of our country’s regulators. Let’s get right into it.

‍

The Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to the powers of federal agencies on Friday, think: WWE wrestler pulls out a metal chair.

‍

In a 6–3 decision split along conservative and liberal lines, SCOTUS overturned the Chevron doctrine, a pivotal 40-year-old precedent in American law. This doctrine had granted federal agencies the authority to interpret laws they were responsible for regulating, covering areas from healthcare to net neutrality. Since 1984, it allowed agencies like the CDC and FCC to determine the implementation of vague laws within their expertise.

‍

With this precedent now overturned:

‍

Courts are no longer obligated to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws, making it harder for agencies to regulate their respective industries. Also, Judges, rather than subject matter experts, will now decide how statutes should be applied. The concern democrats have here is these Judges might lack the specialized knowledge of agencies such as the EPA on issues like factory emissions. On the other hand, GOP lawmakers argue they just undid a precedent that unjustly strengthened the power of unelected government officials, putting that power back into elected officials hands.

‍

Before diving into the rest, which you definitely need to hear, let’s quickly shout out our sponsor:

• While the Supreme Court decision on the Chevron doc was split, the decision on Just Bagels is a clear one. For only $1.69/bagel all-in, these are real NYC bagels delivered to every state in the country. And when you use code “News” at justbagels.com, you help us keep the news free for you! Give Just Bagels a try today!

‍

Chief Justice Roberts noted in the majority opinion that the 17,000 lower court decisions and 70 Supreme Court rulings based on the Chevron doctrine will remain intact. However, federal regulations not clearly supported by explicit laws are likely to face new legal challenges. Some potential targets include recent EPA pollution limits for cars and power plants and the FDA’s expedited approval process for “breakthrough” drugs and medical devices.

‍

On the side of the minority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan, warned that this decision could jeopardize long-standing agency rules that previously went unchallenged.

‍

Now for the majority, this ruling marks a long-sought victory for legal conservatives, who have aimed to reduce the power Chevron granted to unelected bureaucrats. Speaking to its broader significance, if Trump returns to the White House, this decision could facilitate significant reversals of Biden administration policies.

Thanks for listening to this episode of C2 Politics, share it with your friend who doesn’t know what SCOTUS means and see what they think of staying in the know! Have a great rest of your day, we’ll catch you soon.

‍

Bulletin Brief

Republican’s side of Chevron (CNBC)

Supreme Court curbs regulators (Bloomberg)

Federal Agency power cuts (CBS)