A Supreme Mess

Remember, not so long ago, when Republicans pretended to dislike “judicial activism”? Well, a couple of weeks ago, the Republican-led Supreme Court decided that judicial activism is precisely what this country needs. In a 6-3 decision that fell along predictable political lines, the Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Their decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo enshrined and exalted judicial activism in our legal system. & & Decided in 1984, Chevron established that courts should — in general — defer to policy decisions that are made by administrative agencies. Why? Said agencies are likely to have created their policies based on expert analysis. The idea is that someone who is well-trained in, say, environmental science is more qualified than is a judge in determining which air or water pollution policies make the most sense. Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court basically said, “Nah. Unelected, non-expert judges know better than unelected, expert bureaucrats.” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that amicus curae (i.e., “friend of the court”) briefs, as well as the opposing parties’ arguments, are sufficient to help judges correctly decide even the most technically complex cases. According to SCOTUSblog, a website that...