The ruling itself ironically provides an example of why it is a bad ruling: Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, repeatedly referred to "nitrous oxide" rath

The ruling itself ironically provides an example of why it is a bad ruling: Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, repeatedly referred to "nitrous oxide" rather than nitrogen oxides. If the SCOTUS justices can't get this right, in the opinion itself, how can we expect them to make informed decisions on other scientific matters that are more complex? It also seems legally dubious to me, because there will always logically be some level at which interpretive discretion is allowed in executing some statute. Laws cannot fundamentally anticipate every single scenario to which they might be applied. It's disingenuous or naive to believe that regulation is any different at some fundamental level from any other form of statute. You can also turn your own argument on its head: if someone has a problem with a regulatory interpretation, they can always appeal it. SCOTUS could have ruled something more reasonable along these lines, to clarify how to establish abuse of regulation. I tend to be deregulatory in my political sympathies in a lot of domains, but this is not how to go about the issue, in my opinion.