Chevron Deference and the Administrative State

In the fight over confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court the obsession by liberals with Roe v. Wade is greatly overblown in my opinion, and there's something of far greater importance at stake, namely Chevron deference and the administrative state.

Concerning Roe, there's wide agreement among commentators I follow that it's unlikely to be overturned no matter what happens. In addition, (a) policy and litigation concerning abortion turns more on Casey (1992) than Roe (1973), and (b) not much would happen even if Roe is overturned. However, Roe makes a far better talking point because everybody has an opinion on it (whether they understand it or not) whereas you'll likely get a blank stare if you ask the man on the street his opinion of Chevron deference.

Chevron deference is a principle of administrative law dating from a case in 1984 where the courts give deference to administrative agencies in cases where the law may be ambiguous. (See here for more complete definition). It has contributed greatly to the expansion of the power of executive agencies, notably EPA, which has run amok with regulations of dubious basis in law.

The broad issue of the expansion of the power of the administrative agencies has implications in Separation of Powers, where bureaucrats in executive agencies exercise power that should be reserved to Congress. Congress is to a great extent responsible causing it with laws that assign broad discretion to the Executive.

The courts have done their part through Chevron deference, and if Kavanaugh is confirmed there will be a solid majority (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh) on the court with a much more skeptical view of Chevron deference and the administrative state in general. I suspect Democrats are motivated by this to a large extent in the confirmation battle, a basic principle of their governing philosophy, in response to government bloat, being to make it ever bigger.