In all the brouhaha the Friday after the disastrous debate between Trump and POTATUS, a pretty important Supreme Court decision came down. SCOTUS overturned the long-time deference to what was called "The Chevron Doctrine." The ruling cheered the hearts of so many freedom lovers who had watched in horror as bureaucratic tyrants took over the administration of law, regulatory power, and punishment that are constitutionally the purview of Congress alone.

For the decades the Chevron deference was in effect, it meant that bureaucrats had almost unfettered power to create new laws and regulations out of thin air and impose penalties for running afoul of them. Court cases that challenged said authority invariably defaulted to the department in question because, in instances where there were vagaries in a statute or language, the previous SCOTUS Chevron decision said deference must be given then "to the agency's interpretation of the language."

The US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper), will profoundly impact multiple industries regulated by federal agencies that have grown accustomed to being the ultimate arbiter of ambiguous language in their applicable laws, rules and regulations. Those days are over—courts no longer have to defer to federal agencies when resolving such ambiguities.

Originally decided in 1984, Chevron became a watershed decision in which courts used its two-part test as the standard for interpreting when a statute is ambiguous or silent, deferring to the administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 US 837 (1984)...

No longer do politically appointed federal bureaucrats have the power to make rules as they go along.

...The theory underlying the deference afforded agencies in Chevron is that experts who work within federal agencies are often better attuned to the impact of new laws and how they should be implemented within the context of specific industry practices, policies and trends. For example, Judge Friendly once noted that Medicaid law is “almost unintelligible to the uninitiated.” For heavily regulated industries like healthcare and securities, in the wake of Loper, judges across the US, many of whom are unfamiliar with the complexity of the relevant regulatory schemes, may offer potentially conflicting interpretations of the same statute, rule or regulation, thereby creating challenges for industry participants who need to conduct business throughout the country. Of course, the theory underpinning Chevron has its limitations as regulators’ views can change over time. Afterall, the heads of federal agencies promulgating and enforcing their rules and regulations are political appointees who are not necessarily constrained by prior agency practice.

We all cheered the news when it broke, even though we were wrapped up in debate fall-out to boot. Agencies with a good comeuppance due them sprang immediately to mind - Energy with their recently announced and ridiculous CAFE standards, the EPA working in concert with them over banning natural gas stoves and ruining your refrigerator. Just for starters.

As Ilya Shapiro said (well, sort of), "Whoda thunk it?"

Whoever thought that an obscure case about fishing regulations would bring down a core part of modern administrative law, the rules that govern the executive-branch agencies that write the rules by which we live our lives? In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court has overturned the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which told judges to defer to “reasonable” agency interpretations of their operative statutes. Originally meant to streamline the Reagan administration’s deregulatory agenda in the face of judicial obstruction, the doctrine wound up enabling a ratcheting up of bureaucratic bloat.

Good for the Court to recognize that its 40-year-old experiment in rebalancing the relationship between administration and judicial review has failed. And indeed, the Court itself hasn’t used the doctrine in nearly a decade. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion (joined by five colleagues): “At this point all that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with false pretensions.”

So many bogus, standard-of-living-impacting pet projects became law by virtue of department head wand-waving.

It's been a couple of weeks now, and there is an idea of what size tsunami of change, thanks to this decision, might actually wash through the office buildings in D.C.

For example, the Food and Drug Administration has wide latitude to set its own rules, as does the Security and Exchange Commission. Both have been under increasing scrutiny and incurring broader legal action against certain of their dictates. But now, with Chevron gone, do the lawsuits about their rules become a deluge? What about the climate-related disclosure requirements that the SEC has set up? Both agencies are ripe for a litigation explosion.

I hadn't thought about the impact on American agriculture, either, until I got one of my little newsletters this morning. Farmers are hoping this decision will get a number of government monkeys off their backs and are thanking the menhaden fishermen for going the SCOTUS distance.

...This ruling by the Supreme Court throws a wet blanket on how government agencies have operated for the past 40 years.

Predictably, bureaucrats are now playing the Chicken Little card saying the sky will fall, rivers will turn red, and the skies will turn black. Meanwhile, businesses and many average joes are celebrating the ruling saying maybe – just maybe –a little common sense has been restored in how our lives and businesses are regulated on a daily basis.

The Ripple Effect
Could this be the nudge needed so we can start to have some truly honest two-sided discussions about things like gas stoves, gasoline cars, and burping cows before we hastily put everything we know out to pasture? Maybe the world, in which every day is a new day with another new regulation, will finally stop spinning or at least slow down.

There is no doubt the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will certainly clip the powers of federal agencies to issue regulations. This will most heavily impact agriculture when it comes to federal regulations surrounding food and drug safety, environmental and welfare standards. The real world impact at the agency level is that these regulations will be harder to create and enforce, affecting progressive efforts in specific areas like agriculture runoff, wetland protection, climate, and animal treatment guidelines.

When the EPA is writing hard and fast rules declaring a dry creekbed is a "wetland" to be protected under its jurisdiction?

...For example, this could thwart the Biden Administration’s EPA’s unwavering push to regulate the waters of the U.S — down to the sometimes dry creek running through your back 40. This ruling essentially puts the EPA up a creek without a paddle.

...Here’s a tip of the cap, to some scrappy East Coast fishermen. Well done!

Republicans are also determined to look into any actions implemented because of the Chevron deference and "rollback" the executive overreach when they find it.

...The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) said House committees “have an opportunity to review any regulatory action that was justified by Chevron deference toward agency interpretation.” The RSC views the overturning of Chevron as a way to “reclaim congressional authority” and roll back what they see as executive overreach. The committee’s memo encouraged its members to “scour Biden-era regulatory actions and highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.” This indicates a specific focus on reviewing and potentially challenging regulations implemented during the Biden administration.

That's the way to do it.

And not a minute too soon.

Biden rolls out ‘strongest-ever’ vehicle emission standards to ensure most new cars are electric by 2032 https://t.co/RkpA0QdtoC pic.twitter.com/La5abQx8oi

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) March 20, 2024

This is a whale of a good fish story with what could be a really happy ending.