Connect with us

Politics

BREAKING: Supreme Court Delivers Devastating Blow To The Administrative State

Published

4 months ago

on

The U.S. Supreme Court continued to deliver a stunning set of results this week, adding to the list on Friday a decision that dealt a severe blow to federal officials who often saw their recommendations about corporate governance mindlessly accepted by lower courts.

A 1984 decision in the Chevron case was upended in a 6-3 decision as conservative and moderate justices sided with opponents of federal procedures they claimed violated the rights of businesses and individuals under the 7th Amendment of the Constitution. The previous precedent was among the most frequently cited in American jurisprudence, with 70 Supreme Court cases and roughly 17,000 in lower courts relying on its opinion, according to the New York Times.

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer for Slate, warned ominously that the ruling “wip[ed] out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision.”

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.”

Supporters of Chevron argued the longstanding system allowed bureaucrats with specialized knowledge to hold greater influence over the governing of key areas under federal law. Opponents countered, saying the changing of presidential administrations could lead to political considerations when career officials make recommendations to the courts.

free hat

Writing for the minority, Justice Elena Kagan claims the majority of conservative justices “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption,” Stern reported.

“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.

Court observers were surprised at the oscillating viewpoints of the justices on a range of matters the past two weeks, including siding with liberals on abortion and social media restrictions while giving conservatives wins on gun rights and placing other curtails on administrative powers. During Thursday night’s presidential debate, former President Donald Trump declared the high court more impartial than ever when asked about how he would treat abortion now that Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land. President Joe Biden scoffed at the notion, noting that Trump has taken credit for appointing the justices who voted to overturn Roe. Allies of the president like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have continued urging Democrats to expand the size of the court.

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app)



Related Topics: