On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1984 precedent that had long empowered government agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. The 6-3 ruling, which came in a fishing industry regulation case, is a triumph for opponents of expansive government oversight and deals a setback to President Joe Biden's administration.

The decision nullifies the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling, which had established that courts should defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of unclear statutes. This doctrine, known as "Chevron deference," had been a foundational principle for regulatory actions under multiple Democratic administrations.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Chevron decision improperly transferred the power to interpret laws from the judiciary to federal agencies. "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," Roberts wrote. The conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts in the majority decision.

The court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. Justice Kagan criticized the ruling, arguing it elevates the Supreme Court's power over other branches of the U.S. government. "A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies," Kagan wrote.

The ruling raises questions about the future of federal regulations and the power of agencies, particularly in emerging fields such as cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. It places a more significant burden on Congress to address policy issues directly and grants lower-court judges more authority to curb regulators when they overstep their bounds.

The decision also marks the culmination of a broader conservative effort to reduce federal regulatory authority, a campaign often referred to as the "war on the administrative state." This movement aims to weaken the federal agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules, and implements executive actions.

The case involved a federal requirement for certain herring boats to host government-approved observers and cover the daily cost of $710. Fishing companies sued, arguing that Congress had not authorized the National Marine Fisheries Service to impose such fees. Two federal appeals courts upheld the rule, citing a reasonable interpretation of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs marine fisheries management in federal waters.

The monitoring program, intended to conserve and manage the U.S. Atlantic herring fishery, had already been on hold because Congress had not appropriated funds to cover the administrative costs.

The Chevron decision, originally a victory for deregulatory efforts, became a tool for regulatory expansion under Democratic administrations. It was hailed by Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1989 law review article for providing flexibility and political participation in the administrative process. However, conservative perspectives on Chevron shifted over time, particularly as liberal administrations used it to justify broad regulatory actions.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case could impact a range of regulatory actions and sets the stage for further legal battles over the extent of federal agency power. It also signals skepticism toward expansive regulatory power, as seen in recent rulings to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.

Roman Martinez, an attorney for one of the fishing companies involved in the case, called the ruling a victory for individual liberty and the rule of law. "By ending Chevron deference, the court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach," Martinez said.

The Biden administration had defended Chevron deference, arguing it "gives due weight to the expertise that agencies bring to bear" and promotes national uniformity in the administration of federal law. The administration had maintained that the fish conservation program was authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect against overfishing in U.S. coastal waters.

The ruling raises the stakes for future regulatory actions and underscores the need for clear congressional authorization for significant regulatory measures. It also highlights the ongoing judicial debate over the appropriate balance of power between the courts, federal agencies, and Congress in shaping U.S. policy.

The cases are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 22-451, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, 22-1219.