Under the expansive doctrine known as the Chevron deference, federal agencies were given deference by the courts when their rules interpreted vague or ambiguous statutory language from Congress.
But in its recent 6-3 decision, the court concluded that Chevron deference should never have been used to begin with and said courts must use independent judgment to determine the meaning of federal statutes.
"Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities," Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. "Courts do."
"I think the Supreme Court basically handed down a logical decision," responds Mike Hammond of Gun Owners of America, which had filed an amicus brief in the case.
He points out that Chevron deference was the means by which the Trump-era bump stock ban survived for over five years before its recent demise, and it also emboldened the Biden administration to roll out its comprehensive, illegal re-write of multiple federal gun control statutes.
"The Supreme Court said … the agencies aren't always the deities on the interpretation of the law," Hammond explains. "The agencies frequently screw up, and they usually screw up in a way that would tend to enhance their own power."
Therefore, justices threw out the agencies' interpretation of the law and decided to look at what the law says.
