In Friday's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of administrative law precedent, a decision former federal prosecutor Shan Wu characterized on Saturday as a "revolution," with Justice Neil Gorsuch playing a key role.

The Court's decision dismantles the Chevron deference established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. This doctrine had instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, acknowledging that Congress often cannot resolve every detail in legislation.

Wu, in his analysis for The Daily Beast on Saturday, points to Gorsuch's concurrence as particularly revealing. Gorsuch writes that the story of Chevron is "[a] revolution masquerading as the status quo." Wu argues that this statement is a projection of the conservative justices' own motivations, stating, "It's Gorsuch who is helping lead a revolution."

Wu notes that this revolution is "hardly slowed at all by stare decisis—the jurisprudential doctrine of determining new cases based on old ones," highlighting the significance of overturning a 40-year-old precedent.

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the Court's other conservative justices, held that "courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous," effectively overturning Chevron deference. The Court's three liberal justices dissented.

Newsweek has reached out to the Supreme Court's communications office via email on Sunday for comment.

Wu, who served as counsel to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration, views the Court's decision as part of a calculated move to dismantle what conservatives often refer to as the "administrative state." He wrote that by reversing Chevron, the Court's conservative majority is "sowing chaos in the regulatory framework that has governed our nation for decades."

The implications of this decision are potentially far-reaching, affecting federal agencies that have long relied on the Chevron doctrine to implement and enforce regulations. Critics, including Wu, say that the Court's ruling could hinder these agencies' ability to respond to complex and evolving issues in their respective fields.

This landmark ruling comes amid declining public confidence in the Supreme Court. A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe the high Court's justices are more influenced by ideology than by a commitment to impartial interpretation of the law. Only about 30 percent think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government.

The erosion of public trust in the Court has been rapid. The poll shows that as recently as early 2022, before the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion—only about 25 percent of Americans lacked confidence in the justices. Now, 40 percent say they have hardly any confidence in the Court.

This skepticism crosses party lines. The poll indicates that only about half of Republicans have a great deal or a moderate amount of confidence in the Court's handling of important issues, despite the court's conservative majority having handed down some historic victories for Republican policy priorities in recent years.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times reported last week on the historical context of this shift, citing a once-secret memo from 1971 authored by Lewis F. Powell Jr. for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memo outlined a strategy to "roll back the administrative state." Powell was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon, underscoring the long-term nature of this conservative initiative.

Proponents of the ruling, including Gorsuch, argue that it restores the proper balance of power between the branches of government. They contend that the Chevron doctrine had effectively ceded too much authority to unelected bureaucrats, undermining the principle of separation of powers.

However, critics like Wu see a more cynical motive, saying that the decision favors business interests over consumer protection, workers' rights, and environmental safeguards.