In a significant development that could have far-reaching implications for the administrative state, conservative Supreme Court justices expressed support for overturning the longstanding legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine, established by a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1984, has served as the foundation for upholding various regulations pertaining to public health, workplace safety, consumer protection, and environmental preservation.

The Chevron doctrine allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws and establish regulations as long as their interpretation is considered reasonable. This principle has been utilized over the past four decades to guide the implementation of laws governing crucial areas such as food and drug safety, environmental protection, and more.

However, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, including two justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, appear inclined to challenge and potentially overturn the Chevron precedent. This could have significant consequences for the administrative power of federal agencies.

During the court proceedings, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the frequency with which judges invoke the Chevron doctrine, suggesting that such widespread usage could be an indication that it requires revision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about the regulatory inconsistencies that occur when a new administration's interpretation of laws differs from its predecessor's, attributing such issues to the Chevron doctrine.

The final decision is expected to rest with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both appointees of President Trump. Barrett expressed concern about the potential flood of litigation that could result from overturning Chevron, raising questions about the viability of long-standing regulations.

It is worth noting that the outcome might not entail a complete abandonment of the Chevron doctrine but could instead lead to a directive instructing lower courts to be less deferential to agency interpretations. This could make it more challenging to sustain existing regulations. However, this outcome would fall short of the desires of conservative and business interests backing the Supreme Court cases.

The preservation of the Chevron doctrine is being advocated for by environmental and health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, labor unions, and Democratic lawmakers at the national and state levels. Conversely, business organizations representing industries such as firearms, e-cigarettes, farming, timber, and home-building are supporting the challenge to Chevron, echoing their previous involvement in high court cases that limited the scope of environmental regulation.

The potential reversal of the Chevron doctrine comes amidst broader skepticism among conservative justices regarding the authority and power of federal agencies. Recent court decisions have struck down vaccine mandates, student loan forgiveness programs, and restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, signaling a trend towards limiting regulatory powers.

Opponents of the Chevron doctrine argue that it grants excessive deference to government bureaucrats and hinders judicial authority. Conversely, defenders argue that Chevron strikes a balance between judicial interpretation and the expertise of federal agencies in interpreting statutes.

The Supreme Court heard two related cases on this issue, one from New Jersey and the other from Rhode Island. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the New Jersey case due to her previous involvement in it as an appeals court judge. The full court is participating in the Rhode Island case, which was added to the docket several months later.

The outcome of this case holds significant implications for the future of the administrative state and the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. As debates continue within the Supreme Court, all eyes are on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett as they weigh the consequences of overturning the Chevron doctrine.