Neil Gorsuch Leads Supreme Court Ruling ‘Revolution’: Former U.S. Attorney

Friday’s ruling was 6-3 Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoThe Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old administrative law precedent, a decision former federal prosecutor Shan Wu described Saturday as a “revolution” in which Justice Neil Gorsuch played a key role.

The Court’s decision undermines Chevron’s deference established in the 1984 case. Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Councilone of the most frequently cited cases in American law. The doctrine instructed courts to refrain from interpreting ambiguous statutes by federal agencies, recognizing that Congress often could not decide all the details of the legislation.

Wu, in his Saturday analysis for The Daily Beast, points to Gorsuch’s concurrence as particularly revealing. Gorsuch writes that history Chevron is “(a) revolution masquerading as the status quo.” Wu argues that this statement is a projection of the motivations of the conservative justices themselves, stating that “It is Gorsuch who is helping to lead the revolution.”

Wu notes that the revolution is “not slowed down by this at all.” old decisions—a jurisprudential record according to which new cases are decided on the basis of old ones,” underlining the significance of overturning a 40-year-old precedent.

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the Court’s other conservative justices, concluded that “courts cannot defer an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because the statute is ambiguous,” effectively undermining Chevron’s deference. The three liberal judges of the Tribunal did not express a separate opinion.

Newsweek on Sunday reached out to the Supreme Court’s communications office by email seeking comment.

Wu, who served as counsel to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration, sees the Supreme Court’s decision as part of a deliberate move to dismantle what conservatives often call the “administrative state.” He wrote that by reversing Chevronthe Court’s conservative majority “is wreaking chaos on the regulatory framework that has governed our country for decades.”

The ramifications of this decision could have far-reaching consequences, impacting federal agencies that have long relied on the Chevron Doctrine to implement and enforce regulations. Critics, including Wu, say the Court’s ruling could make it more difficult for these agencies to respond to complex and evolving problems in their respective fields.

The landmark ruling comes amid declining public confidence in the Supreme Court. A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe that Supreme Court justices are more influenced by ideology than by their commitment to impartial interpretation of the law. Only about 30 percent believe that justices are more likely to provide an independent check on the other branches of government.

The erosion of public trust in the Court occurred quickly. The survey shows that in early 2022, before the repeal ruling is issued Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion—only about 25 percent of Americans had no confidence in the justices. Now 40 percent say they have almost no confidence in the court.

This skepticism cuts across party lines. The poll shows that only about half of Republicans have great or moderate confidence in the way the Court handles important issues, even though the Court’s conservative majority has scored several historic victories on Republican policy priorities in recent years.

Charlie Savage from New York Times released a report last week on the historical context of the change, citing a once-secret 1971 memo authored by Lewis F. Powell Jr. for the United States Chamber of Commerce. The memo outlined a strategy to “withdraw the administrative state.” Powell was then appointed to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon, underscoring the long-term nature of this conservative initiative.

Supporters of the ruling, including Gorsuch, say it restores the proper balance of power among the branches of government. They argue that the Chevron Doctrine has effectively ceded too much power to unelected bureaucrats, undermining the principle of separation of powers.

But critics like Wu see a more cynical motive, saying the decision favors business interests over consumer protections, workers’ rights and environmental protection.