The damage the Supreme's attack on federal decision making will do

High Country News -  For decades, courts have deferred to federal agencies when interpreting vague statutes. What constitutes the “take” or killing of an animal? What does it mean to maintain a wildlife population’s viability? What does “multiple use” mean when it comes to managing Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands?

But a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, has shifted the authority to make these decisions from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines and written by Chief Justice John Roberts, did away with what’s known as the Chevron precedent, which instructed courts to defer to agency expertise regarding ambiguous laws, as long as those readings were reasonable.

The Chevron doctrine was one of the most-cited administrative law cases ever. In striking it down, the Supreme Court made an untold number of statutes vulnerable to legal challenges, while curtailing the ability of federal regulators to interpret and enforce existing laws.

“I think the bottom line is it will undoubtedly be disruptive,” said Martin Nie, a professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana.

High Country News has compiled a list of some of the issues and topics in our core coverage areas that are likely to be impacted by Chevron’s repeal.