Supreme Court ruling may threaten role of science in U.S. rulemaking
By JEFFREY MERVIS, Science.
Excerpt: In a much-anticipated decision that many scientific groups had feared, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a 40-year-old doctrine that gave federal agencies considerable leeway in interpreting laws passed by Congress. The 6-to-3 ruling means judges should no longer defer to the scientific expertise of those agencies on a vast range of technical questions and, instead, should make such decisions themselves. “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case involving environmental regulations affecting herring boats. ...But in a stinging dissent, Justice Elena Kagan ...gave several examples of technical questions that she feels judges are ill-equipped to answer. The Food and Drug Administration must decide what qualifies as a protein in regulating biological products, she notes. And the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to determine what constitutes “distinct population segments” of imperiled plants or animals to enforce the Endangered Species Act. “That is what a typical Chevron question looks like,” she wrote, and scientists at those agencies have the knowledge and experience to answer them. “It is a role this Court has now claimed for itself, as well as for other judges,” she asserted....