The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is actively engaged in curbing the authority of regulatory agencies, reinforcing its pivotal role in the ongoing effort to weaken the “administrative state.” Recent rulings by the court have significantly limited the federal government’s power to regulate areas such as stock trading and pollution, as reported by Reuters. However, the justices have refrained from further restricting abortion rights or expanding 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 highlights the readiness of its conservative majority, consisting of six justices, to discard longstanding precedents. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively dismantling the constitutional right to abortion, and in June 2023, it ended affirmative action in higher education. The repercussions of these decisions will pose challenges for President Joe Biden or any future president in implementing policies across various areas, including student debt relief, pregnant workers’ protections, climate change mitigation, and regulation of artificial intelligence.
This reversal by the high court follows over a decade of conservative campaigning, including efforts by some Republican-appointed justices themselves, to rein in the so-called administrative state. Notably, this decision comes just two years after the court limited regulations with “major” political or economic implications through a ruling on a climate case. While Republicans have applauded the ruling, Democrats and their allies have criticized it, citing recent ethics controversies involving some justices.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by banning bump stocks, thereby invalidating the rule implemented during the Trump administration. Two significant cases on the court’s docket provided opportunities for the conservative justices to further restrict access to abortion. However, they chose not to take action on these cases, leaving the possibility open for these issues to resurface before the Supreme Court in the future.