This is a really poor ruling, in that the upper judiciary is not supposed to interpret the language of laws but their constitutionality. It's been long established by the SCOTUS that it is up to the executive to the interpret law.
Where did you get that idea from? The SCOTUS, for quite a long time, has interpreted statutes. To say that the judiciary is not supposed to interpret statutory language doesn't mesh with Chevron v. NRDC. If only the executive, and never the courts, were allowed to interpret statutes, the executive could do whatever it wanted and avoid the courts entirely, claiming that everything was within its discretionary interpretation. Clearly the courts must have some ability to interpret statutes.
What are you talking about? The Chevron case ruled the executive's interpretation of the law goes. That's exactly the precedent it set.
