In a significant development, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court spent several hours on Wednesday critiquing the longstanding legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, which grants federal agencies broad discretion in creating policies and regulations across various domains. The justices heard two cases involving the Chevron deference, with conservative justices signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old precedent, while their liberal counterparts sounded the alarm about the potential ramifications of such a reversal on government regulation.

The Chevron deference emerged from a 1984 case and holds that when disputes arise over the regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to reasonable agency interpretations. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has expressed reservations about the Chevron deference, argued that the doctrine consistently favors the government over the individual. Gorsuch voiced concerns about the potential disparate impact of the doctrine on certain groups, such as Social Security Disability applicants and veterans seeking benefits.

Supporters of the Chevron deference now face uncertainty as the court's conservative justices seemed inclined to challenge the doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the relevance of Chevron in the federal court system, suggesting that the court has not relied on it for the past 14 years. However, attorneys representing the parties involved pointed out that lower courts still rely on Chevron to navigate complex cases involving agency power.

The liberal justices on the bench expressed their reservations about overturning the Chevron doctrine, highlighting the importance of allowing federal agencies, staffed with experts in their respective fields, to make policy decisions. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that federal judges may not possess the necessary expertise to tackle complex issues, such as artificial intelligence, and that these decisions would be better left to those knowledgeable in the field.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the Chevron doctrine, warned of the potential instability that would arise if the court were to abolish the doctrine. Overruling Chevron, Prelogar asserted, would be a significant and unwarranted shock to the legal system.

During the arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns about the potential consequences of overturning Chevron, particularly with regard to past cases where judges had deferred to agency interpretations. She questioned whether the move would invite a flood of litigation aimed at challenging previous holdings.

The cases before the court primarily revolved around a National Marine Fisheries Service mandate, which required fishing vessels to bear the cost of onboard observers. The fisheries involved argued that the agency lacked the authority to enforce such payments.

While the particulars of the cases were discussed, the focus of the justices' attention remained on the broader question of the fate of the Chevron doctrine. The potential impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate disputes at hand and has significant implications for government regulation and agency power.

It remains unclear how the court will ultimately rule based on the arguments presented. Nevertheless, the robust critique of the Chevron doctrine from the conservative justices underscores the potential threat the doctrine faces in the Supreme Court.