Unlike the hyperbolic coverage in the press - the decision did not say that judges are now responsible for making regulation, rather than experts in regulatory agencies.
What they said is that now, if a statute is ambiguous, a regulatory agency makes a regulation that falls within that ambiguity, and someone files a lawsuit, the courts can play their standard, established role in resolving the ambiguity and figuring out the intent of Congress and determining whether the regulation is authorized by statute.
Previously, Chevron deference required the courts to defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute, regardless of how unreasonable that interpretation was.
This was abused by people who used it as a loophole to push through regulation which they knew would not be politically viable in Congress. Chevon deference allowed an end-run around democracy. And also led to uncertainty - because these regulations were politically controversial and not supported by law, just by executive branch fiat, they are prone to being revoked whenever the party holding the presidency changes.
If a topic is important enough, Congress can always resolve any of these issues by amending the relevant statute.
All of these controversies over Supreme Court decisions really come down to people who are advocating for positions and regulations which are unachievable through the normal political, legislative process in the US getting upset that the Supreme Court is not allowing them to enact these policies through backdoors and loopholes rather than the democratic process.