The landscape of administrative law is undergoing a seismic shift, a revolution that has captivated legal scholars and practitioners alike. At the forefront of documenting these changes are Professors Shalev Roisman and Oren Tamir, whose recent work in the Michigan Law Review paints a vivid "Picture of a Revolution" in the field. Their study focuses on the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, a period marked by significant rulings that have reshaped the powers and scope of federal agencies.

The term saw the end of "Chevron deference," a cornerstone of administrative law that required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous laws. The Court's shift towards the "Major Questions doctrine" signals a tighter leash on agency discretion, demanding clear congressional authorization for decisions carrying major economic and political impacts.

In this transformative period, I, along with co-authors Dan Feldman, Rose Mary Bailly, and Mehmet Konar-Steenberg, have been revising our manuscript for the book "Learning Administrative Law." This task has involved grappling with the rapid evolution of legal precedents and the implications of these changes on the administrative state. Our approach balances a detailed ("trees") analysis with broader thematic discussions ("forest") to provide a comprehensive view of the current judicial stance.

The dichotomy in views among scholars is palpable. Feldman likens the Supreme Court's actions to an arsonist intent on dismantling the administrative framework. In contrast, I recognize the significant shifts but maintain that the administrative state persists, albeit in a more constrained form.

The recent re-election of President Donald Trump and his subsequent administrative actions have only added fuel to this fire. His aggressive moves to reshape federal governance, supported by the Supreme Court's rulings, suggest a continued trajectory towards limiting agency power.

Our book, while not a traditional casebook, employs criteria similar to those used by Roisman and Tamir to evaluate the ongoing legal transformations. We discuss the end of Chevron deference, replaced by Skidmore deference, which affords agency interpretations persuasive but not binding authority.

The ongoing "Roberts Court Revolution" poses new challenges and a changing legal framework that we and future scholars will continue to analyze and interpret. As the situation evolves, the administrative law landscape promises to be a dynamic field of study, offering rich insights into the interplay between law, politics, and governance. The journey of documenting and understanding this revolution is far from over, and its full impact will unfold in the years to come.