Government agencies cannot create regulations that go beyond what is set by congress. In other words, they must regulate within the bounds set by congress.
For example: If congress passes a law giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions for energy sectors, the EPA can't then expand those regulations to then add carbon caps that would force a nationwide transition away from coal. It would need congress to pass such a rule.
Any and all examples of "vague" authority granted to executive agencies will still be subjective and require the courts to intervene. It already was this way. That's what this case was an example of.
This case doesn't set a precedent like you all think it does. The precedent was already set, and the major questions doctrine remains as subjective as it always was.
What this means:
It literally was this way already.
This ruling is a nothing burger.
Any and all examples of "vague" authority granted to executive agencies will still be subjective and require the courts to intervene. It already was this way. That's what this case was an example of.
This case doesn't set a precedent like you all think it does. The precedent was already set, and the major questions doctrine remains as subjective as it always was.
What was the case precedent?
You should look up the major questions doctrine, non-delegation principle, and major rules doctrine. All different words for the same thing.
This type of ruling is nothing new.
So can you give specifics? For those of us who are trying to decipher the fall out?