Regulatory Agencies Suffered Their Latest Blow in Chevron Ruling

Overturning the Chevron deference precedent is just the latest in a series of ringing blows the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative bloc has delivered to the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests, advancing a longstanding goal of the conservative legal movement and the donors who have funded its rise.

Just yesterday, the majority struck down the ability of agencies to enforce their rules via in-house tribunals before technical-expert administrative judges. Instead, it ruled, agencies must sue accused malefactors in federal court before juries.

In recent years, the Republican majority has also made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down, including by advancing the so-called major questions doctrine. Under that idea, courts should nullify economically significant regulations if judges decided Congress was not clear enough in authorizing them.

Advancing and entrenching that idea, the court has struck down an E.P.A. rule aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants, and barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from telling large employers they must either have their workers vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus or have them undergo frequent testing.

And in a 2020 ruling, the five Republican appointees then on the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the law Congress enacted to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that had protected its head from being fired by a president without a good cause, like misconduct.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday’s decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court blocking “common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard