Supreme Court overturns 1984 Chevron precedent that limits federal government’s power

The Supreme Court on Friday significantly weakened the authority of federal agencies to approve regulations in a major decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the environment, public health and the workplace.

The 6-3 ruling, which overturns a 1984 precedent, would shift the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches and hand an important victory to conservatives who have sought for years to curtail the regulatory power of the “administrative state.”

The lawsuits were filed by two groups of herring fishermen challenging a Commerce Department regulation that requires them to pay salaries to government observers who board their vessels to monitor catches. But the decision will trigger much broader federal regulation affecting many aspects of American life.

This decision annuls Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent that required courts to show deference to federal agencies when creating rules based on ambiguous law. Congress routinely passes open-ended laws that give agencies latitude to establish — and adapt — the details to new circumstances.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the son of a former EPA administrator, wrote in a separate letter that the Chevron Deference rule is “a serious anomaly when viewed in the context of the court’s overall historical practice.”

He said the 1984 decision “undermines core values ​​of the rule of law, from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing,” adding that it “operates to undermine, rather than advance, the interests of those relying on legal counsel, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.”

Liberals say ruling is ‘judicial hubris’

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissenting opinion joined by two other liberals on the court, said that with the reversal of Chevron, “the principle of judicial humility gives way to the principle of judicial hubris.”

“In one fell swoop, the majority today arrogates to itself exclusive authority over every open issue—no matter how expert-based or policy-laden—including the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority is turning itself into the administrative czar of the country,” Kagan wrote.

The majority, she added, “despise restraint and desire power.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the outcome “another deeply troubling decision that is setting our country back.”

Jean-Pierre said that “Republican-backed interest groups have repeatedly appealed to the Supreme Court” and that “the Supreme Court has once again ruled in favor of the interest groups.”

Conservatives have long sought to curtail regulatory power, arguing that Washington has too much control over American industry and individual lives. Justices have gradually reduced federal power over the years, but the new case gives the court an opportunity to take a much broader step.

In the case of the fishermen who brought the case, the law allowed the government to mandate observers but did not address the issue of who would pay their wages, which the fishermen said increased their costs by about $700 a day. They urged the court to rule that agencies could not enact such a requirement without express congressional approval.

The Supreme Court has been moving in this direction for years, rejecting attempts by federal agencies in other contexts to authorize regulation on their own. In 2021, for example, the court’s conservatives rejected the Biden administration’s effort to extend an eviction moratorium first approved during the Trump administration. Last year, the court’s conservatives similarly invalidated Biden’s plan to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans.

This story has been updated with additional details.

To receive more CNN news and newsletters, sign up for CNN.com