The Supreme Court achieved another goal of the conservative legal movement Friday when it overturned a long-standing precedent requiring deference to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws on matters of environmental regulation and much more. Simply put, the ruling puts more power in the hands of courts at a time when, not coincidentally, the high court is dominated by Republican appointees, who delivered the 6-3 decision over dissent from the court’s Democratic appointees.
The upshot of the decision overturning the 1984 Chevron precedent is to give courts “the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments” and “the power to make all manner of policy calls,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling. The decision follows Thursday’s 6-3 ruling in another agency case, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent called out the majority’s “power grab.”
In Friday’s case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Kagan wrote that “a longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”
Kagan noted that it’s not the court’s first time ditching “settled law,” as she cited the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, among others. She wrote that her own dissents to such reversals “now fill a small volume.” It’s a volume that may continue to grow if the court’s current composition holds. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
