Supporting Commentary

“In the ensuing decades, [Chevron] has become legendary, less for what it said than the way it has been used by some lower courts — particularly the appeals court in Washington that handles so many agency cases — to create a presumption in favor of an agency’s decisions.”

Alex Sower and Stephen Dinan, Staff Writers for the Washington Post

“A concern Chevron raises is that, for some cases, it substitutes the agency’s preferred view of what the law should have said—in place of the legislation that actually was enacted.Certain consequences would follow Chevron’s curtailment. Businesses, NGOs, individuals, and other entities regulated by an agency would be treated as that agency’s equal.”

Sohan Dasgupta, Partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister

“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)

“For decades, Chevron deference has emboldened agencies to twist statutory text to generate all manner of regulations Congress never authorized.”

Kara Rollins, New Civil Liberties Alliance Litigation Council (via Seafood Source)

“…[Chevron]’s inconsistent with our constitutional system, in which it is the courts, not executive agencies, who are responsible for saying what the law is.”

Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer at the National Review

“Congress should pass laws, judges should construe them, and unelected bureaucrats should stick to their job of just implementing those laws — not rewriting them… The Court should overturn Chevron and return power where it belongs: with the people.”

Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General (via West Virginia Record)