A lawsuit brought by a family-owned herring fishing company in New Jersey is now before the Supreme Court. The case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. [U.S. Secretary of Commerce] Raimondo is challenging the Constitutionality of allowing federal agencies to impose new—and often costly—mandates on businesses based on their “interpretation” of the intent of laws passed by Congress, which in this specific case is forcing Loper Bright Enterprises to cover the cost, at an estimated $710 per day for each of their fishing boats, of an outside contractor to monitor their catch, a regulatory burden that reduces the income for each boat in their fleet by approximately 20%. 

This broad (some would say outrageous) regulatory latitude was granted by a previous Supreme Court decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in 1984, and it has been the foundation of the incredible rise of the regulatory super-state over the past 40 years, which has seen the imposition of innumerable and expensive fiats that cost, it has been estimated, well over $4 trillion each year.

If the precedent set by the so-called “Chevron decision” is overturned, the proximal cause will be the humble herring, a tiny fish that seems an apt symbol for the David and Goliath battle between businesses and the largely unfettered powers of federal bureaucrats, most of whom have likely never worked outside of the cozy confines of a civil service job.

The crux of the problem, according to many businesses and industry groups, is that regulations are often passed—but rarely revoked. The continually mounting toll of regulatory overkill that is blithely unconcerned with the enormous costs—and rarely tracks the often illusory benefits—of more and more mandates is borne by every American in the form of enormous pass-along costs to consumers and diminished innovation and job creation for all.

The plea of Loper Bright Enterprises is, unsurprisingly, backed by a number of business and Conservative interest groups, which to Liberals who oppose the likely shrinkage of government regulatory powers is a sure sign of nefarious intent. The very idea that the expansive—and continually expanding—powers of the state to micromanage our economy might be curbed is sending a shiver up the spine of every Soviet-style central planner in Washington who is working assiduously to dictate what we can eat, where we can live, and what we can drive while simultaneously stripping away our abilities to live our lives, raise our children, and express our opinions as we please.

Those who oppose the possible reversal of the underlying logic of the Chevron decision, which would remove the enormous discretion now granted to unelected and largely unaccountable federal regulators, are predicting “chaos” if the Supreme Court rules against the government. This is perhaps a benefit of age, but I do not recall our nation being particularly chaotic in 1983. Products and services were readily available, typically at far lower costs than we pay today, and the economy seemed to hum along quite well without the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats demanding their cut of business profits to pay their salaries and justify their jobs.

Regulatory mechanisms are, of course, necessary in a complex and interdependent economy to ensure worker and product safety while protecting the environment. However, despite the apocalyptic predictions of those enamored with government controls of our daily lives, a reversal of the precedent set by the Chevron decision will not mean that wholesale slaughter will result. We live in a markedly different world than we did forty years ago, and the ability of anyone with a cell phone camera and a social media account to document and publicize abuse or malfeasance has dramatically shifted the balance of power in our economy. Given that regulation is today often used (in exchange for fat campaign contributions) to stifle the competitors and increase the profits of specific businesses rather than provide any meaningful worker or consumer protections, one has to wonder whether the withering away of the regulatory state might actually provide far more benefits than we today realize are possible.

Supreme Court rulings sometimes have a (probably unintended) sense of irony. Considering the fact that the original ruling that set the stage for the growth of America’s “Big Brother” regulatory state was handed down in 1984, it seems the universe has a twisted sense of humor that we cannot fail to recognize in this instance. 

Although some federal agencies will see their budgets cut and many D.C. lobbyists will need to cut back on their vacation spending, the net result of a reduction of the regulatory burdens on businesses will certainly be a free enterprise system that is more free—and efficient. We will all reap the benefits from this, and Congress will be forced to pass clear and explicit rules as needed rather than use the stealth powers of federal agencies to do their work for them, which is perhaps the greatest of all the blessings we shall enjoy if the precedent of the Chevron decision ends up on our nation’s legal scrap heap.