The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority is focusing on curbing federal regulatory authority, reinforcing its pivotal role in a long-standing effort by business interests and others to weaken the “administrative state.”
According to Reuters, the court’s sweeping rulings have limited the federal government’s power to regulate areas such as stock trading and pollution. However, the justices chose not to further restrict abortion rights or expand gun rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment ahead of the November 5 presidential election.
The Supreme Court’s reversal of the Chevron decision further underscores the readiness of its six-justice conservative majority to discard longstanding precedents. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, dismantling the constitutional right to abortion, and in June 2023, it ended affirmative action in higher education.
The fallout from this decision will make it more challenging 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, curbing climate pollution, and regulating artificial intelligence.
The high court’s reversal follows over a decade of campaigning by conservatives, including some of the Republican-appointed justices themselves, aiming to rein in the so-called administrative state. This decision comes just two years after the justices’ limited regulations with “major” political or economic implications through a ruling on a climate case.
While Republicans cheered the ruling, Democrats and their allies trashed the ruling and cited recent ethics controversies involving some justices.
The court’s 6-3 decision ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority by banning bump stocks, thereby invalidating the rule implemented during the Trump administration.
Two significant cases on the docket provided the court’s conservatives with opportunities to further restrict access to abortion. The justices chose not to take such actions but also did not address the fundamental legal questions, leaving the possibility open for these issues to reemerge before the Supreme Court in the future.
