Was Roberts’ Obamacare decision better than we might have thought?

Since it was issued, Justice Roberts’ court opinion on Obamacare has been roiled and vilified by those on the right.

But in today’s on-line magazine “the Hill,” some are arguing that the decision might not be as bad as we think, and the decision may actually hold the promise of reigning in the bureaucracy in a way not previously contemplated:

Several noted scholars of administrative law (see here and here) have noted that Roberts has signaled a general movement away from Chevron and judicial deference to regulatory agencies. If courts do not defer to agencies, then it will be easier for those looking to overturn agency regulations to find a receptive ear in court. Industries looking to overturn future regulations will be sure to cite King v. Burwell in their briefs and argue that the issue they are contesting is of deep significance.

Whether this approach will be successful hinges on how many issues the courts decide are of “deep economic and political significance.” Administrative law experts say that Roberts breathed life into the “major questions” doctrine previously used by the Supreme Court to deny Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco. Clearly, many regulatory questions are not major and do not rise to this level of significance and so the long-term impact may be limited to a small number of cases. But some regulations do rise to this level.

The most obvious regulations coming down the road that have economy-wide significance are the pending EPA regulations regarding climate change. These regulations will also inevitably end up before the Supreme Court sometime around 2018. The major questions doctrine may very well be used as the Supreme Court evaluates the EPA’s final regulations on climate change.

Read it all here.

So, while it may have legalized Obamacare, the court may have thrown down the gauntlet and signaled that they’re going to body-slam the EPA’s regulations on climate change.

What do you think?