Supreme Court Delivers Devastating Blow To The Administrative State

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court has produced an astounding array of outcomes. On Friday, the court added to its list of rulings with a judgment that delivered a serious blow to federal officials whose suggestions for corporate governance were frequently and blindly adopted by lower courts.

Conservative and moderate justices sided with opponents of federal procedures they argued infringed firms’ and people’ rights under the 7th Amendment of the Constitution, upending a 1984 decision in the Chevron case in a 6-3 ruling. According to the New York Times, the prior precedent was one of the most often cited in American jurisprudence, having been cited in 70 Supreme Court cases and around 17,000 instances in lower courts.

Mark The decision “wip[ed] out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies,” according to senior writer for Slate Joseph Stern, who issued a dire warning. The trio of liberals disagrees. This choice is really important.

Continuing on, Stern wrote on X, “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. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift. 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.”

Chevron’s backers contended that the established system gave officials with specialized knowledge more power to direct important areas under federal law. On the other hand, critics responded that when career officials submit recommendations to the courts, shifting presidential administrations can give rise to political considerations.

According to Justice Elena Kagan’s minority opinion, the majority of conservative justices “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” turning stare decisis into “a laughingstock” and causing “large-scale disruption,” as reported by Stern.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. … The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” Kagan added.

The justices’ varying opinions on a number of issues over the past two weeks have shocked court observers. For example, the justices have sided with liberals on abortion and social media limits while giving conservatives victories on gun rights and other curbs on administrative authority. When asked how he would handle abortion now that Roe v. Wade is no longer the supreme rule of the land, former President Donald Trump declared the high court to be more unbiased than ever during Thursday night’s presidential debate. The idea was mocked by President Joe Biden, who pointed out that Trump has claimed credit for selecting the justices who voted to overturn Roe. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), one of the president’s allies, has persisted in pushing Democrats to increase the court’s size.







Send this to a friend