I am not qualified to argue, I’m only an engineer and businessman, with you but you are swimming against the current of some major legal minds and my considerable experience against regulatory activism and administrative law. Chevron opened the flood gates of regulation writing and made most resistance futile. Most of my nearly 50 year career was covered by Chevron. It was as prevalent in business as SOX has been since Enron.
No doubt this may increase legal challenges to administrative rules, but the truth is there have been no cases in the past few years where the court ruled based on Chevron. Our legislature debated a bill this past session that would have outlawed Chevron in Oklahoma. I was tasked with researching the issue. I could not find a ruling in the last few years based on Chevron. This ruling was expected in most circles. I know that the media and liberals are clutching their pearls, but this was not unexpected. That was the findings of my research several months ago. I truly don’t think it will curtail much rule making much at all. The bottom line is the courts just cannot give deference to the angency interpretation of what the rule means. But liberal judges can still uphold them. They just can’t do so because the federal agency says, ‘we meant this.’ Not much will actually change.