WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned a four-decade-old precedent that has long been criticized by conservative groups for empowering federal agencies. The ruling, which involved a challenge to a fisheries regulation, put an end to the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case, marking a significant shift in the interpretation of agency authority.

The 6-3 ruling, with conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices in dissent, signaled a departure from decades of reliance on the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the need for courts to independently assess agency decisions.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, lamented the erosion of a longstanding precedent in administrative governance, highlighting the tension between judicial oversight and agency discretion. The decision reflected a broader trend of conservative justices challenging the scope of federal agency power.

Opponents of the Chevron doctrine have long argued that it grants too much leeway to agency bureaucrats, undermining the rule of law. The ruling is part of a series of recent cases in which the court has reined in agency authority, aligning with the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail what they saw as the excesses of the administrative state.

The case at hand involved a challenge to a federal regulation requiring fishing vessel operators to contribute to the costs of data collection for fishery conservation and management. The challenge, brought by operators in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast, questioned the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service to impose such requirements under existing law.

Critics of the rule argued that the financial burden imposed on operators, particularly small owner-operators, was excessive and could hinder their ability to operate effectively. The dispute underscored broader concerns about the balance of power between federal agencies and regulated industries, with implications for environmental protection and business interests alike.

The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a broader shift in judicial philosophy, with implications for the future of regulatory governance in the United States. As the court continues to grapple with questions of agency authority and statutory interpretation, the role of federal agencies in shaping policy outcomes remains a subject of ongoing debate among legal scholars and policymakers.