Jon's assesment is correct and in keeping with the opinion of D.A. Carson's opinion found in his work on the Gospel of John.
A few options that have been presented follow: 1) God is addressing Israel’s judges; 2) God is addressing angels; and 3) God is addressing Israel at the time of the giving of the Law. Jesus’ usage of the passage in John 10 should inform us, at the very least, of his intention for the passage, if not its meaning. Given the contrast that John places between God and mere man, the second option seems out of context. Given the judgments being rendered in John 9-10 and Psalm 82, one would naturally assume the first; but what are we to do with the phrase in both passages, “to whom the word of God came?” It has been argued, primarily from the Rabbinic tradition, that this applies to the giving of the Law; but did the Law only come to those whom it originally came, and did it not also then come to every generation? While it is impossible to state with absolute certainty the addressees of Psalm 82, we can say with certainty that they are humans, and they are Jews.
We understand from the Psalm that the nature of the address is one of rebuke, but what method of rebuke does God use? In Job God uses mockery by sarcasm (38-41); in Amos 4:1 He uses derogatory comments , Jesus uses irony in the seven woes and in John 9, as well as a well-developed allegory in Ezekiel 34. Out of the well-developed arsenal of rebukes at God’s disposal, what does God use here? To read most commentators, one would assume that He uses the most basic, the flat statement of sin and consequence. In fact, if we read nothing more than the flat reading of the text (whole Bible), then we would assume that God merely uses the word elohim to refer to judges, and that God is truly puzzled about whether man can go on a fishing trip for Leviathan, and also about the bovine nature of the women of a certain region. Of course we read these passages beyond their surface; so, with trepidation this post steps out of the well-worn tracks to explore a possible alternate theory (though certainly this is not the first attempt to do so).
To begin, a few presuppositions: 1) there is, in fact, one God; 2) the Hebrew language uses one word to sometimes refer to both God and men; 3) God takes counsel from no one; and 4) the pagan rulers of the Ancient Near East sometimes believed themselves to be gods (Daniel 6:7, Acts 12:22). If the presuppositions stand, then could these Israelites have thought too highly of themselves, perhaps falling into the common temptation to be like the other nations and to think of themselves as gods, (I Samuel 8:5) and ignoring God’s law (Psalm 82:2)? If so, then God’s usage of elohim here could be perceived as sarcasm and adds weight to His indictment against them. In other words, as God’s representatives of justice on the earth, they have failed in representing Him; and unlike some divine being or prince of other nations that may believe themselves to be eternal gods, they will die. However, the majority view remains and should be acknowledged, that this usage of elohim is employed within its un-nuanced normal range of meaning.
In short, I would argue that the "elohim" of Psalm 82 are the judges/rulers of Israel who are being rebuked, and with a fair amount of sarcasm.
Concerning semantic range:
1. pl. in number. †a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives
at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power
2. Pl. intensive. a. god or goddess
3. The (true) God
4. Yahweh is God in truth
Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Strong's, TWOT, and GK References Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), xiii.