The Supreme Court is getting ready to decimate 'all aspects of federal governance': legal expert

In legal terminology, "stare decisis" means "respect for precedent" or "let the decision rest." But the U.S. Supreme Court's hard-right supermajority, according to critics, threw "stare decisis" to the wind when it overturned Roe v. Wade after 49 years, outlawed the use of affirmative action in college admissions, and undermined gun control laws.

Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, in an article published on January 17, warns that the Roberts Court is likely to attack another precedent and "strike down" government agencies' regulatory powers.

"On Wednesday, (January 17)," the legal journalist explains, "the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority signaled its intent to overturn four decades of precedent and award itself even greater authority to strike down policies that govern every conceivable aspect of life in the United States. This revolution has been years in the making, the result of a lavishly funded campaign to transform the courts into a weapon against any regulation you can think of."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Stern adds, "The environment, the economy, health care, civil rights, education — all aspects of federal governance will be in peril, subject to the whims of unelected judges with zero expertise or accountability and a distinct bias toward deregulation."

The 2024 cases that Stern is referring to specifically are Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

"For decades," Stern notes, "the Supreme Court has instructed judges to use a tool called Chevron deference…. The doctrine is rooted in a 1984 decision, Chevron v. NRDC, which involved an EPA policy that loosened restrictions on air pollution. This policy was enacted by Justice Neil Gorsuch's mother, EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch. Environmental groups filed suit, but SCOTUS unanimously sided with the EPA's approach."

The legal journalist continues, "The Court explained that agencies are staffed by experts with far more knowledge in their specific area than judges. These agencies are accountable to the president, who is, in turn, accountable to the citizenry. The Court thus held that 'it is entirely appropriate' for agencies to make the policy choices inherent in interpreting ambiguous statutes."

READ MORE: How Gorsuch's 'own brand of defiance' was shaped by his mother’s failed gig as EPA head

Stern points out that the High Court's three Democrat-appointed justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — have "mounted an impressive defense of Chevron," while the six GOP-appointed justices have expressed their "distaste" for the 1984 ruling.

"Here's the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it'll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once," Stern argues. "Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws — they are ultra-vulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron's absence.""

READ MORE: Neil Gorsuch called on to recuse from case that would benefit oil baron pal

Mark Joseph Stern's full article for Slate is available at this link (subscription required).