Supreme Court ruling is bad news for science — and the public

Amid a flurry of US Supreme Court activity — including this week’s granting of partial immunity to ex-president Donald Trump for acts carried out while in office — a SCOTUS ruling on who should pay for government monitors on herring boats seems almost trivial. In fact, the plaintiffs, who successfully argued that government rather than fishing companies should foot the bill, landed a much bigger catch: overturning a 40-year-old legal principle known as the Chevron deference (or Chevron doctrine). The reversal, by a 6-3 margin with judges split along partisan lines, means the opinions of scientists and technical experts at US federal agencies will no longer reign supreme when it comes to interpreting legal ambiguities. For companies feeling suffocated by regulation, this will be welcome: the ruling dethrones an unelected, unaccountable technocracy, reins in perceived regulatory over-reach at organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency, and shifts power back to the courts. Tho

Amid a flurry of US Supreme Court activity — including this week’s granting of partial immunity to ex-president Donald Trump for acts carried out while in office — a SCOTUS ruling on who should pay for government monitors on herring boats seems almost trivial. In fact, the plaintiffs, who successfully argued that government rather than fishing companies should foot the bill, landed a much bigger catch: overturning a 40-year-old legal principle known as the Chevron deference (or Chevron doctrine). The reversal, by a 6-3 margin with judges split along partisan lines, means the opinions of scient