I think it's easy to argue against it being the right decision simply due to the people involved on each side of the case. For one, it was a very "partisan" ru

I think it's easy to argue against it being the right decision simply due to the people involved on each side of the case. For one, it was a very "partisan" ruling being a 6-3 conservative court ruling. The fishing companies' legal representation for the case includes organizations with funding linked to Charles Koch, and the side that is condemning the outcome is an environmental protection group. I'm no bootlicker. I don't side with corporations and billionaires over environmental protection groups unless there's an extremely compelling case for it. I think that while you may technically be right about the flaws in the status quo, the end result of the ruling will be that companies now have a new mechanism to litigate every bad thing they want to dump into the environment to death whereas previously the administrative regulatory agencies were able to quickly strike down nonsense like that. I think they'll have a better avenue to now claim rules are ambigious that aren't actually ambiguous, appeal appeal appeal, and just keep going at it until they find friendly or uninformed judges. And let's not forget that administrative agencies don't have a complete lack of enforceable ethics rules like the Supreme Court does. If a company wants to claim a chemical is ambiguously dangerous, they can now litigate the hell out of it all the way up to a surpreme court where a direct bribe to a judge is 100% legal.