"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." 

-Daniel J. Boorstin

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

In June, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision, which grants federal judges the authority to interpret and execute ambiguous laws, effectively strips nonpartisan government agencies like the EPA or FDA of their power to act in such cases. This means that federal judges, who may lack specific industry knowledge, will now be making complex policy decisions. Consequently, the potential harm to America's future is a grave concern that cannot be understated, especially given the volatility of our current political atmosphere. 

Repealing a nearly 40-year precedent set by the infamous Chevron Deference case, the Supreme Court voted in a 6-3 majority to grant power back into the hands of federal judges. This shocking repeal has largely gone unnoticed in the public eye, but its implications for the future of America are far from insignificant. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissent, "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law."

By taking power from apolitical federal agencies and placing it in the hands of judges, the Supreme Court risks creating detrimental policies made by those who do not have the breadth or the resources to understand extremely niche or elaborate topics. Simply put, repealing the Chevron Deference is unethical, as it writes federal courts a blank check in their jurisdiction over subjective policy decisions. The repeal of the Chevron Deference also reveals a newfound trend of partisanship over policy, given that over 750 federal court judges likely have varying opinions on how laws should be interpreted. Opening ambiguous statutes to interpretation at the judicial level runs the risk of politics being brought into laws regarding the common good, a surefire recipe for disaster.

An equally important facet of this decision is its insight into the American condition. The death of the Chevron Deference reveals a large-scale shift away from the trust we as people have in our federal agencies. After all, why allow nonpartisan industry-specific experts to interpret the letter of the law when this responsibility could be given to comparatively ill-informed federal courts? This question is, in itself, a microcosm of the American self-importance that pervades the federal government. Judicial ego has gone too far, and the Chevron Deference has gone with it. 

At this polarizing critical juncture in American politics, we cannot afford to put policy making decisions into the hands of federal judges, allowing self-importance to rule over industry specific common sense. In essence, the Chevron repeal is a striking representation of selfishness and egoism, the highest court in the country placing more power into its already overflowing cup. As the tides of the American judiciary shift into an age of further partisanship, I encourage readers to think critically about the topic of self-importance within our federal government.

Because the less we question this illusion of knowledge, the less obvious of an illusion it becomes.