Washington DC - During a recent House Oversight Committee hearing, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert tried to interrogate a government official, but her effort failed miserably.

On Wednesday, the Colorado representative attempted to grill Michael Regan, the administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, regarding a recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Chevron deference.

She pressed Regan about "your rogue bureaucrats that have enacted these unconstitutional regulations" and repeatedly asked if the EPA planned to repeal them.

Regan, clearly confused by her line of questioning, asked Boebert, "Do you understand the ruling?"

Donald Trump Federal workers union hits back after Trump threatens remote work

The two squabbled for some time over the questioning until Regan, with a laugh, said, "No."

Boebert, an outspoken MAGA Republican who recently won her primary for re-election, was clearly misinformed on what the ruling entails, forcing one of her Democratic colleagues to step in and explain it.

Last month, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling regarding Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – a safeguard for clarifying ambiguous laws.

The court decided to overturn Chevron deference, effectively stripping federal agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous federal statutes and giving it to the judiciary.

The decision has been panned by many critics, who argue that it has thrown out years of legal precedent, but some have praised the decision, as it will make it easier for lawmakers to argue against government regulations.

Donald Trump Trump tries to bully Europeans into buying more fossil fuels by making latest tariff war threat

So, when Boebert pressed Regan about his agency using their power to throw out regulations that have been deemed "unconstitutional," she proved that she didn't understand the ruling, as it did the polar opposite by stripping his agency of that power.

During the House hearing, Democrat Representative Daniel Goldman stepped in to "clarify" things for his Boebert, explaining that the Loper-Bright ruling said the court should not "defer to agency rule-making if a statute is ambiguous, and instead, the courts get to determine... what the statute means."