Supporting Commentary

“Chevron deference was illegitimate the day it was decided: it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and traditional tools of statutory interpretation. Imagine if you were in a car accident and go to court to resolve who is at fault. If the person who hit you were to say, “I win because the court is required to defer to my interpretation of traffic laws,” I’m sure you would react negatively. That is what Chevron deference does. It rejects fairness, the due process of law, and the Constitution’s separation of powers, and requires judges to acquiesce to the views of one of the litigants before it for no other reason than that it is the government. In Loper Bright, the Court should uproot Chevron, not merely clarify it. No amount of clarification can rescue a doctrine that is rotten at its core. Chevron is a precedent that should have been discarded long ago.”

Attorney Adi Dynar and Senior Legal Fellow William Yeatman, Attornies for the Pacific   Legal Foundation (via Bloomberg Law)

Read More »