Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan strongly criticized her conservative colleagues on Friday for overturning the Chevron deference, a major decision that shifts power from federal agencies to the courts.
In her dissent, Kagan condemned the majority’s action, stating that it effectively transforms the Court into the nation’s administrative czar. Alongside liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan argued that the majority’s decision replaces a principle of judicial humility with one of judicial hubris.
“The majority’s decision grants itself exclusive authority over every contentious issue—no matter how steeped in expertise or policy it may be—pertaining to the interpretation of regulatory law,” Kagan wrote.
She further criticized the decision for placing the judiciary at the forefront of numerous policy debates, spanning from climate change to artificial intelligence.
“The Court has substituted its own assessments on workplace safety for those of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgments on climate policy for those of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own interpretations on educational loans for those of the Department of Education,” Kagan argued.
The 6-3 ruling marks a significant departure from a longstanding administrative law precedent of granting federal agencies flexibility in interpreting ambiguous laws through rulemaking. Moving forward, judges will apply their own interpretations of the law rather than deferring to agency expertise, potentially facilitating easier overturning of regulations that impact diverse facets of American life.
“Chevron is now overturned,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the majority decision, supported by his five conservative colleagues. Roberts asserted that courts must independently evaluate whether agencies have acted within their statutory authority.