By
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about an important issue known as Chevron deference, which comes from the decades-old Chevron precedent under which courts defer to administrative agency expertise. The dry-sounding subject could have profound implications, affecting things like regulations over business, the environment and much more, so it’s understandable why it has become a target for conservatives.
Toward the start of the lengthy hearing, Justice Elena Kagan’s questions to a lawyer arguing against the Chevron precedent illustrated the issue. She asked, for example, whether a new product designed to promote healthy cholesterol levels is a “dietary supplement” or a “drug”? Her inquiry raised the broader prospect of whether it should be courts or agency experts deciding questions like these.
“You want the courts to decide that?” the justice asked incredulously.
She summed up the issue as whether the countless policy issues confronting the nation will be decided by courts that don’t have expertise or agencies that do.
For context, it’s important to understand that the Chevron decision came in 1984, when Republicans had executive power and wanted to wield it instead of judges. Now that Republicans have reshaped the high court — cementing a 6-3 conservative majority — they want the justices to hold that power.
As is often the case, Kagan’s questions got to the heart of the matter. But in many of the biggest cases in recent years, the Democratic appointee’s views have been relegated to dissents on the Roberts Court.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.