The ruling is likely to stymie public health initiatives, experts said.

The Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Friday, overturning a long-standing legal precedent known as the Chevron deference. This decision reduces the power of executive agencies, shifting power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. The court determined that agencies should not have special competence and that judges should interpret federal laws. The Chevron precedent has been widely cited in American law and has influenced numerous Supreme Court and lower court decisions. Critics of regulatory authority believe that this ruling could provide new opportunities to challenge federal rules in various fields, including abortion pills and the environment.

The ruling has implications for the regulation of food, drugs, the banking and financial sector, taxation, and the targeting of medication abortion and rights for transgender individuals. Conservatives who have long criticized executive branch agencies are celebrating the decision, as they believe it has been misused by government administrations. On the other hand, supporters of regulatory oversight are concerned that this ruling empowers courts rather than Congress to dictate policy. The decision stems from two similar cases involving a federal law requiring herring boats to carry federal observers to prevent overfishing.

This ruling is part of a broader trend of overturning major legal precedents. Over the past three terms, the Supreme Court has overturned precedents on abortion, affirmative action, and now the power of administrative agencies. Critics argue that this erodes the court’s judicial humility and promotes judicial hubris. The White House expressed disappointment, claiming that the decision favors Republican-backed special interests at the expense of common-sense rules that protect health, environment, financial systems, and American consumers and workers.

Experts believe that the ruling will have a significant impact on public health efforts and could invite litigation against regulations aimed at safeguarding Americans. It could also hamper the ability of the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to implement federal regulations central to President Biden’s economic agenda. Additionally, the ruling may affect the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate climate change, given the challenges it poses to interpreting the Clean Air Act.

Overall, this ruling undermines regulatory agencies’ authority and may lead to more litigation, uncertainty, and slower regulatory processes. The decision favors a more limited role for federal agencies, relying more on judges and Congress to interpret and establish regulations. It remains to be seen how this ruling will affect specific industries and areas of regulation, but it sets a precedent for the ongoing debate over the balance of power between regulatory agencies and other branches of government.