Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court are actively working to limit the power of regulatory agencies.

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is focused on reining in federal regulators, reinforcing their key role in long-standing efforts by business interests and others to weaken the “administrative state.”

The court’s sweeping rulings have limited the federal government’s power to regulate areas such as stock trading and environmental pollution, according to Reuters. However, the justices decided not to further restrict abortion rights or expand gun rights under the Second Amendment before the November 5 presidential election.

The Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron decision further underscores the willingness of the six-judge conservative majority to reject long-standing precedents. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion, and in June 2023, it ended affirmative action in higher education.

The impact of this decision will make it difficult for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a wide range of policy areas. These include eliminating student debt, expanding protections for pregnant workers, reducing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.

The Supreme Court’s overturn came after more than a decade of campaigning by conservatives, including some Republican-appointed justices, to rein in the so-called administrative state. The decision came just two years after the justices’ limited rulemaking on “significant” political or economic implications in a climate ruling.

While Republicans welcomed the ruling, Democrats and their allies sharply criticized it, citing recent ethics controversies involving some judges.

The 6-3 court decision ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority by banning bump stocks, invalidating a rule put in place by the Trump administration.

Two significant cases on the docket provided opportunities for the Court’s conservatives to further restrict access to abortion. The justices chose not to take such action, but they also did not address the underlying legal issues, leaving open the possibility that these issues would come up before the Supreme Court again in the future.