The Supreme Court announced Monday it will take up a case next term that could overturn a 40-year-old precedent — and reshape the acronym-heavy DC administrative state.

By opting to hear a case involving New Jersey fishermen, the justices will return to the high court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most commonly cited Supreme Court cases — and the bane of conservatives.

In the Chevron case, the court articulated a two-part “deference test” — known as the “Chevron test” — which found that federal agencies may interpret statutes without direct congressional approval, if legislators left the laws unclear and if the agency’s interpretation was deemed reasonable.

Four of the Court’s six conservative justices have already expressed skepticism about the concept of deference outlined in Chevron.

In 2016, while still an appeals court judge, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the ruling allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”

The case will be further complicated by news that the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will recuse herself after hearing arguments in a similar case while a DC appeals court judge.

Last June, the Supreme Court signaled support for placing limits on federal regulation when it ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Days earlier, the court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that bestowed a constitutional right to abortion nationwide.

The case at hand, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will settle a dispute between a New Jersey fishing company and the Commerce Department over whether federal regulations force them to pay hundreds of dollars each day to third-party contractors, who are required to monitor activities on board fishing boats and report back to the government to help shaping rules and regulations.

Former US Solicitor General Paul Clement, who served under former President George W. Bush, and attorneys with Cause of Action Institute petitioned the Court in November to overrule the 2020 federal mandate that commercial fishing groups pay for the monitors.

Loper Bright argues that Congress never gave federal regulators authority to require that it shoulder the expense of being monitored.

The group estimates the watchdogs could make more than $700 per day — more than even some boat captains earn.

“We are delighted that the Court took this case not only to potentially deliver justice to these fishermen, but also to reconsider a doctrine that has enabled the widespread expansion of unchecked executive authority,” Clement said.

“We are grateful to the Supreme Court for taking our case,” said Bill Bright, a New Jersey fisherman and plaintiff in the case. “Our way of life is in the hands of these justices, and we hope they will keep our families and our community in mind as they weigh their decision.”

At least 38 organizations and individuals have also submitted amicus briefs in defense of the fishermen’s case, one of which signed by 18 state attorneys general.