Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

The Chevron ruling was codifying what was already happening for decades:

> When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura...

There is plenty of oversight in interpretation and Congress does not need to micromanage interpretation or implementation. Delegation as a principle of government pre-dates the formation of the US with Ministers of the Crown, and was continued post-formation as that's why there are Secretarys of Department X/Y/Z or Directors of Agency A/B/C.

The People (through their representative in Congress) are fine with agencies doing the interpretation. Those agencies are headed by an Executive of The People (President), and are run by administrator who are People-approved (through Congressional hearings and Senate approvals). The Legislative branch can dial up and dial down the flexibility of interpretation any time they want through Acts that change how the department/agency involved works, or through altering leadership (Secretarys, Directors) of the agencies.

Businesses already have to deal with frequent litigation, including class-action lawsuits even in areas that overlap with regulatory agencies.

Quite to the contrary of what you are suggesting, reversing Chevron doctrine will allow the courts to develop a body of solid precedent surrounding these areas of law, and create a more stable legal framework, rather than the status quo of opaque, politicized agencies having the power to re-interpret their authority and change the regulatory environment at their own prerogative -- stare decisis doesn't apply to executive agencies, but it certainly does apply to the courts.

I'm impressed that Congress had the audacity 40 years ago to attempt to take judicial authority away from its constitutional locus in the courts and re-assign it to executive branch agencies, expecting them to be exercise reliable oversight over their own authority.

And that is a bad thing? If it is, I'll take it. The agencies have been ineffective at their stated missions. They have been revolving door power grabs since the end of WW2. You know, that time when we let all those "former" Nazis into prominent roles of government agencies?

It's not like the EPA stopped PFAS from contaminating water all over Earth. Or microplastics being embedded in the penile tissue of most men...Among the other "miracles of modern science". The EPA is too busy going after small landowners doing water management.

And if agencies are so wonderful. Why don't we have a Department of Peace & a Department of Prosperity for All? So the agencies cannot make up their own laws anymore? Cry me a PFAS laden river.