There have been a number of court cases recently, that if things play out correctly, will derail the Administrative State.

I'm not a lawyer, so I only understand the basics.

• Traditionally, Congress was expected to pass new laws.
• This more or less was the model for rule until the mid-70s when the various regulatory agencies started "filling in the blanks" of what Congress didn't explicitly mention
• Congress then got more and more disinterested in the specifics, only passing laws that outlined in very broad brushstrokes what it wanted to achieve. Letting the agencies fill in the specifics as they came up.
• This came to a head in 1980s in a court case involving Chevron, in which it was battling against some environmental regulations that it said was not a law. This became known as the Chevron Doctrine (ie. that these agencies were allowed to fill in specifics if not clearly defined by Congress)

Now there are 2 cases (I think) in front of SCOTUS which could upend the Chevron doctrine.

One is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo

I forget the name of the other, but hopefully these come out in favor in scrapping or severely restricting the ability of these agencies to "create laws"

While it seems an obvious truth, the argument should attack, IMO, the most compelling aspects of the perception people haves of "State Regulatory Agencies". For once, most people is oblivious of the concept of "the standard", and they have learned to understand only the state interpretation of it, "legislation". That, coupled with the fact that people perceives "State Regulation" essentially as an entity capable of defining the laws of physics, makes for a powerful delusion that will come back again and again if not dissected, exposed, and taught.