Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Administrative State, Reverses Chevron Decision

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision today, reversing the 1984 Chevron case that had granted unelected bureaucrats near-unlimited power to interpret and enforce regulations. The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo marks a significant shift towards reining in the power of the regulatory state and restoring the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, firmly establishes that federal courts maintain adjudicatory power over "cases" and "controversies," regardless of existing laws. This decision intends to limit the unchecked power of bureaucrats who have often used their authority to create and enforce rules without input from the democratically elected branches of government.

The decision was joined by conservative justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Liberal justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented, arguing that Congress had intended for regulations to be created and enforced by bureaucrats, essentially supporting the status quo.

In a separate case, Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a particular evidentiary statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2), had been misinterpreted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute individuals for interfering with congressional proceedings. The court determined that the statute should be interpreted within the context of the broader statute, stating that sub-clauses should not be interpreted in isolation.

Justice Barrett, who wrote the dissent in the Loper Bright case, dissented in this case as well, arguing that the statute should be interpreted broadly to include interference with congressional proceedings.

The final decision addressed the validity of vagrancy laws and whether they constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that vagrancy laws, which impose fines and short jail terms for those who engage in behaviors that harm the public, do not criminalize status and are a valid exercise of a state's authority.

The opinions delivered today signal a significant win for those seeking to limit the power of the administrative state and reinforce the idea that democracy should be governed by elected officials who are accountable to the people, not unelected bureaucrats.

As always, stay tuned for further developments on these cases and the latest legal news.

Read more