“One side or the other is going to win.”

That’s what Justice Samuel Alito told journalist Lauren Windsor last month at a black-tie event at the Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, D.C.

“It’s difficult for the two sides to live peacefully together since there are differences about fundamental things that really can’t be compromised,” Alito continued.

We all know the issues that matter to Alito—the issues that can’t be compromised on. Hell, his wife Martha-Ann made it clear to us what they despise: having to stare at a Pride flag that sits across the lagoon from their summer home where their “Appeal to Heaven” Christian nationalist flag flies. So you can bet your sweet cheeks that for Alito, there will be no compromise when it comes to abortion. Or to trans women in women’s sports. Or to bathrooms. Or to gender-affirming care. Or to disability accommodations. Or to environmental regulations. He will happily force the most vulnerable people in this country to place their neck right under Christian nationalism’s steel-toed boot.

So the fact that last month, the Supreme Court anointed itself the overlord of the entire administrative state by overruling the critical 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council should induce panic in everyone who thinks agency experts should be the ones to resolve ambiguities in Congressional statutes enacted to create those very agencies.

Because despite the keening from conservatives about how awful the Chevron doctrine is, that’s all Chevron did: It laid out the simple rule that in the case of an ambiguous statute relating to how a federal agency does its business, it’s the federal agency—not courts—that should resolve the ambiguity, because agencies have expertise in the subject matter that courts don’t.

For 40 years, Chevron required a two-part framework for reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute that Congress charged it with administering. First, a court must exhaust all the ordinary tools courts use when they try to interpret a statute. These tools include looking at the plain language of the statute and divining Congress’ intent by examining legislative history. If, after this rigorous inquiry, the statute is still ambiguous, the Chevron doctrine then requires courts to back off and let the agency interpret the statute.

But this is no longer the case. According to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, “Chevron’s presumption is misguided........

© Rewire.News