![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/cce297d9-19e5-47b7-ada2-203d5780f961.jpeg)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.