Folks in federal agencies all over the country are trying to figure out how they are going to adapt to the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which marks the end of the so-called Chevron deference.

The decision to limit federal agencies’ actions in interpreting ambiguous laws will force changes in how agencies and lawmakers work, said Kristin Hickman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

“The Supreme Court is signaling as strongly as it is able that it expects Congress to be a little bit more careful in how it drafts statutes,” she said. And the court won’t be as willing as in the past “to allow Congress to just fall back on agencies rather than making some hard choices for itself.”

That’s likely to be especially true in regard to controversial topics like workplace safety and environmental regulation, said Devon Ombres, senior director of courts and legal policy at the Center for American Progress.

“There is a real concern that the court may now begin placing statutory constructs in amber and not allowing agencies any flexibility to address new and emerging challenges,” he said.

Agencies will have to stick to exactly what’s written in the law, said Dan Greenberg, general counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which filed a brief with the court in favor of overturning the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine.

“Congress is going to be required to do a better job, to write clearer text, clearer statutes, and no longer will agencies be able to come in and clarify ambiguities,” he said.

Because if agencies do try to interpret the law in a way that, say, a business or industry group thinks goes too far, “they’re on notice that the courts will probably strike it down because previously they had some degree of independence,” Greenberg said. “That era is over.”

And the post-Chevron era has begun.