🚀 US Supreme Court reconsiders longstanding doctrine on agency power

Liberal justices argued that agencies’ experts, rather than judges, were often best placed to craft rules. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that striking out Chevron could turn judges into policymakers. “There’s a real separation of powers danger here,” she said. “I’m worried about the courts becoming uber-legislators.”

If the Chevron doctrine were overturned, rules “are much more likely to be invalidated by a court, and so the agency will have to be much more careful about which options to choose and how it selects between various possibilities”, said Jonathan Masur, professor at the University of Chicago’s Law School. Federal courts would also have more power to determine whether rules fit their interpretation of a statute.

I’m not sure I grasp the whole implication of this debate, but I’d say that less regulatory discretion for the executive branch and a stronger judicial oversight is good for the balance of powers and the rights of the people as it furthers the control of the administrative activity. What’s wrong about agencies having to be “much more careful about which options to choose”?