The Supreme Court’s Political Shift: Presidential Power & the Chevron Decision

Written by Daniel John Dunevant on February 20, 2025, 4:15 pm

The Intersection of Law, Politics, and the Supreme Court

As someone interested in law and politics, my opinion is not final, but I will try to make it clear. For this Deep Thinkers meeting, I'm preparing by reading *Law 101* by Jay Feinman. The book covers the basics of law by categorizing them as best as possible. While reading the chapters on constitutional law and rights, I can't help but notice the politicization of the Supreme Court and how that affects the interpretation of the law.

The Supreme Court’s Growing Politicization

One of the biggest changes over time has been how political the Supreme Court has become. In my view, the makeup of the court today is more partisan compared to when the book was written in 2005. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, once stood up for gay rights. That seems almost unthinkable now. Even the word conservative itself has taken on a different meaning over time. If I were to rank political extremism from least to most, I would say conservative, Republican, then MAGA. Over the past 20 years, I think we as a country have become more polarized.

Presidential Power and the January 6th Case

One of the most troubling Supreme Court decisions in recent history is the ruling that essentially legalizes nearly all executive actions as long as they are for presidential purposes. There were some exceptions outlined, but if you want to understand the real impact of this decision, look at the reaction of the dissenting vote. Justice Sotomayor wrote, "The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding."

This ruling is particularly significant in the case involving January 6th. The question was: how much blame can be placed on Trump for the attempted insurrection? We’re already seeing this precedent play out. On February 15th, Trump posted a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte on Twitter: "He who saves his country does not violate any law." That statement alone should be alarming. It suggests that as long as someone believes their actions serve a greater good, the law no longer matters.

Republicans used to stand for the rule of law. Now, it seems the only laws they care about are the ones that help them win or favor them. Trump was responsible for the attempted coup of the U.S. in 2021, yet his supporters continue to stand by him and downplay what happened on January 6th. Instead, they push conspiracy theories—claims that it was an inside job or that federal agents provoked the chaos. If you ask a Trump supporter, they’re likely to have a few more theories too. The Deep State is a major theme in MAGA politics. Trump often says, "They're after me, and they're after you too." This makes his supporters feel like they are on some kind of heroic mission, rebelling against the system. They believe they have secret knowledge about how things *really* work—but the proof is always just out of reach. There’s a reason for that. Their leader, the one who told them about the Deep State, doesn’t actually know either. He twists the reality of over a hundred injured officers into something that was supposedly good.

The Overturning of the Chevron Doctrine

Another major Supreme Court decision that stands out to me is the overturning of the *Chevron* decision. For decades, the *Chevron* doctrine allowed federal agencies to interpret vague laws passed by Congress. If a law was unclear, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had the power to make reasonable interpretations to enforce it. The idea was that experts in those agencies knew better than courts when it came to technical issues.

Now, with *Chevron* overturned, courts—not agencies—will have the final say in interpreting laws. This is a massive shift in how the government functions. It means that judges, who may have no expertise in science, health, or environmental policy, will now be deciding how federal regulations are enforced. This could lead to weaker environmental protections, fewer workplace safety regulations, and major delays in implementing policies.

Businesses and conservative groups have long pushed for the end of *Chevron* because they saw it as giving too much power to government agencies. But what they don’t acknowledge is that Congress often writes vague laws *on purpose* because lawmakers don’t have the expertise to get into the fine details. With *Chevron* gone, it’s likely that many regulations will be challenged in court and struck down simply because judges interpret the law differently.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the Supreme Court is shifting power in ways that will have long-lasting effects. The decision to give the president near-total immunity and the overturning of *Chevron* both weaken checks and balances in different ways. One expands presidential power, while the other limits the ability of government agencies to regulate industries. These changes may seem unrelated, but they both point in the same direction—toward a system where fewer institutions can hold power accountable.