The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the long-standing “Chevron” doctrine, curbing the power of federal agencies by empowering federal judges to question more of their policy decisions. 

For Context: In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that judges should defer to the reasonable interpretations of federal agencies when federal laws are ambiguous. According to The New York Times (Lean Left bias), Chevron has been cited in 70 Supreme Court decisions and 17,000 lower court decisions.

Majority Opinion: On Friday, the court’s six conservative justices joined to overrule Chevron, with Chief Justice John Roberts citing the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirement that “courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Thus, courts cannot defer to agencies simply because a statute is ambiguous. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separate concurring opinions. 

Dissenting Opinion: Joined by the other two liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “between courts and agencies, Congress would usually think agencies the better choice to resolve the ambiguities and fill the gaps in regulatory statutes. Because agencies are ‘experts in the field.’” Now, Kagan said, the court’s conservative majority “gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments.”

How the Media Covered It: Coverage often hyped up the impact of the decision; Axios (Lean Left bias) called it “seismic.” While some on the left said the precedent was “targeted by conservatives,” Fox News (Right bias) stood out by saying the Supreme Court simply “sided with fishermen” against “the administrative state.”