This is part of Opening Arguments, Slate’s coverage of the start of the latest Supreme Court term. We’re working to change the way the media covers the Supreme Court. Support our work when you join Slate Plus.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a pair of cases designed to hobble federal agencies that interpret and enforce the law, a step that will seize significant power from the executive branch. A majority of the justices appeared eager to overturn a doctrine called Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. This development is high up on the wish list of Republican megadonors and activists, who have spent huge sums of money on the campaign to kill Chevron.

On Saturday’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the Supreme Court’s aggressive, arguably unlawful efforts to transform these cases into a weapon against the administrative state—even though they challenge a program that no longer exists. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: I want to turn to the demise of Chevron in Loper Bright, which the court heard this week. Anybody who thought maybe the court was backing off the big, wacky moves from two terms ago and that it would go lightly on Chevron deference was probably unpleasantly surprised this week.

But before we get........

© Slate