The Supreme Court just dealt a massive blow to the “administrative state” in a landmark ruling ending the nearly 40-year practice of so-called “Chevron deference.”

For those unfamiliar with the legal doctrine, “Chevron deference” refers to a principle outlined in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984. To understand the meaning and purpose of this principle, it is important to note that many times Congress passes laws that are ambiguous and vague, and therefore difficult for relevant regulatory agencies to implement in every respect. The Chevron ruling held that the courts would generally be deferential to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes relevant to their scope of action. For instance, the principle of Chevron deference means that courts would defer to the IRS’ interpretation of tax laws, the EPA’s interpretation of environmental laws, and so forth.

The rationale behind this principle is that the regulatory agencies have experts who are in the best position to fill in the gaps where a law passed by Congress is ambiguous or vague. From a constitutional point of view, however, many conservatives have noted that this poses some severe problems when it comes to the constitutional design of separation of powers. After all, Congress is supposed to make laws, and executive agencies are supposed to enforce them. With Chevron deference, however, it increasingly seemed as though regulatory agencies themselves were effectively making the laws they execute by virtue of their broad scope of interpretation, and indeed, at a certain point, interpreting law amounts to making law. Apart from the constitutional issue, many on the right were deeply troubled by the authority Chevron deference placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, often from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, that have stifled economic growth with arguably unnecessary regulation. In general, it is fair to say that the 40 years we have experienced under Chevron have contributed massively to the bloat of what some might call the “administrative state.”

Needless to say, many on the right are thrilled.

Those on the left are correspondingly despondent.

Given its seeming technical nature, it is difficult to convey just how important this ruling is. The Chevron case, which was just overturned, was the single most cited case in all of administrative law. One can think of the recent ruling as the equivalent of overturning Roe for the Administrative State.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the issue was decided across ideological lines in a 6-3 landmark ruling on joint cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

While the ruling is undoubtedly a major step toward restoring separation of powers and cutting bureaucratic red tape, there remain possible countervailing factors to consider. For the most part, federal bureaucracies are hostile to the efforts of the right, but one wonders whether the courts having more authority than bureaucracies in some cases might work against the right’s interests, especially under a Trump presidency. For instance, can we be confident that immigration courts would be more sympathetic to sound border enforcement than immigration agencies under a Trump presidency? Perhaps, but this is far from clear.

Leaving these side considerations aside, this was a very bad day for power-hungry, unelected bureaucrats.