Given the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, an upcoming case between a group of New Jersey fishermen and the federal government could have considerable implications for the future of harsh government regulatory practices. 

According to Fox News, the group of fishermen petitioned the Supreme Court over a situation in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency, attempted to force them to pay a contractor $700 per day to a contractor that monitors their fishing vessel for "compliance."

The fishermen, understandably, were not on board with that idea, arguing that it was not under the purview of federal regulation; rather, it was an issue they -- and most conservatives -- believe Congress should decide.

The "observer" program forces fishing vessels to hire expensive -- often unaffordable -- contractors to monitor compliance issues. Commercial fishermen have long-argued that the unfair and burdensome program has a dire effect on business operations.

The case is called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and it will be heard when the Supreme Court enters its next session in the fall of 2023.

Fox News added:

Lower courts have rejected arguments that the rule goes too far by leaning on the Supreme Court precedent set in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

However, because the high court has decided to take the case, the Chevron decision could ultimately be overturned.

The group of fishermen will be well represented by Paul Clement, "who served as U.S. solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 and has argued more than 100 cases" before SCOTUS.

Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital that Chevron's precedent has been grossly overstretched.

"Over the years, the Chevron doctrine has been used by lower courts as a tool to give bureaucratic and unaccountable administrative agencies excessive deference in interpreting statutes," Severino said.

She added: "The Court's decision to grant this case is a promising sign that it intends to either overturn the precedent or give much needed clarity to lower courts applying it."

Cause of Action Institute counsel Ryan Mulvey issued a similar statement on how Chevron is misused.

"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct one of the most consequential judicial errors in a generation. Chevron deference has proven corrosive to the American system of checks and balances and directly contributed to an unaccountable executive branch, overbearing bureaucracy, and runaway regulation," Mulvey said.

Only time will tell how the high court decides the case, but if it overturns the landmark Chevron case, many federal regulatory practices will be immediately called into questioned and challenged.