> Unlike the hyperbolic coverage in the press - the decision did not say that judges are now responsible for making regulation, rather than experts in regulator

> Unlike the hyperbolic coverage in the press - the decision did not say that judges are now responsible for making regulation, rather than experts in regulatory agencies. No, they literally said that. Multiple times in the ruling [1] [2]. The point is that the court can now take any interpretation of the laws as reason to say the agency has no right to do what they're doing, instead of first checking if the agency and its interpretation is valid and relying on experts. [1] "Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding" [2] "Under the APA, it thus “remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”