Regulations are nowhere near that freeform, and they have extensive public review and commentary. The EPA was in court for years debating whether CO2 could be included under the Clean Air Act because they had to stay in the narrow lanes Congress created.
The CDC case seems to make the opposite point: they took a broad interpretation of the public health act, and it was rejected in the courts as exceeding what Congress had intended:
Right, of course, it was clearly illegal but during the key period the CDC got what it wanted anyway. There were apparently no repercussions for this behavior, is making a decision this latest struck down by the courts are valid justification under federal employment law of the terminating employees?
The CDC case seems to make the opposite point: they took a broad interpretation of the public health act, and it was rejected in the courts as exceeding what Congress had intended:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/eviction-mora...