The Court's Conservative Majority in Its Current Phase
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has now been in place for several terms. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a leading conservative constitutional scholar, appeared on Breaking Battlegrounds Episode 229 to analyze how the conservative majority is using its jurisprudential authority. His framework: the Court is systematically pulling back the administrative state that expanded over the previous four decades, using textualist and originalist methodologies to reread statutory authority more narrowly.
The major doctrinal development driving this project is the post-Chevron landscape. The Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled Chevron deference, the 40-year-old doctrine requiring courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The downstream effects of that ruling are being worked out in 2025-2026 term decisions.
Administrative Law: The Post-Chevron World
With Chevron deference eliminated, federal agencies can no longer rely on courts to uphold their interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Courts must now independently determine what astatute means. This shifts power from executive agencies toward Congress (which must write clearer laws) and toward courts (which now decide statutory meaning independently).
For conservatives, this shift is directionally correct: it reduces the regulatory reach of agencies that accumulated enormous power over decades under Chevron. Environmental regulations, financial regulations, and labor rules that rested on broad agency interpretations of general statutory language are now more vulnerable to judicial challenge.
Immigration Cases
The Court has taken several immigration cases in the 2025-2026 term relating to the second-term administration’s enforcement priorities. Challenges to the reinstatement of Migrant Protection Protocols, the expansion of expedited removal authority, and the use of the Alien Enemies Act have all generated federal court decisions. The Supreme Court’s willingness to allow enforcement measures to proceed while litigation continues has been a significant practical victory for the administration’s immigration agenda.
Art Arthur’s analysis from Breaking Battlegrounds Episode 232 is directly relevant here: he predicted that second-term immigration enforcement would be more legally durable than first-term measures because the legal theories were better developed and the statutory authorities more carefully identified.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of overruling Chevron deference?
Chevron deference required courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Its overruling means courts now independently determine what statutes mean, limiting agency regulatory authority that had expanded significantly under the doctrine.
Who is Ilya Shapiro and why is he a relevant source on Supreme Court decisions?
Ilya Shapiro is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a leading constitutional scholar who has filed multiple Supreme Court amicus briefs. He appeared on Breaking Battlegrounds Episode 229 to analyze the Court’s direction under its conservative majority.
