No, obviously not. That is so far removed from what this case actually was about.

The FBI, while they may overstep their authority and we all may hate them, are a proper executive agency. Their purpose is to enforce written laws. That's what the executive branch does.

The FBI doesn't write laws or "opinions." (well, they might, but that's beside the point, their intended purpose wasn't to do that). Whereas all these other bullshit agencies are actively legislating shit. Like the EPA makes rules. The FBI doesn't make the rules, they enforce them. But the EPA is making rules and enforcing them.

But this case really doesn't even stop that. This case didn't set the precedent you all think it did. The major questions doctrine has always been a thing, and it's forced many similar cases like this into the courts, where they are all settled on a case-by-case basis. This ruling settled this specific case, but did not really set any meaningful precedent that wasn't already set.