Supporting Commentary

“All of this is not only good but necessary and healthy for a democratic and constitutional system. If it provokes in Congress the habit of writing laws, and in agencies the habit of obeying them, all the better. Agencies are but creatures of law, and law is but a creature of the sovereign people’s right to self-government — a government of laws, and not of men.”

The Editors, National Review

“Administrative agencies and their expertise are here to stay. But a post-Chevron world is much needed — to adhere to the Constitution, to restore a properly functioning tripartite system, and to finally put pressure on Congress to do its job.”

Jill Jacobson, visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Law Center (via Boston Globe)

“The cases also rebalance the three branches of government. Beforehand, the legislature empowered the executive, and the judiciary deferred to that, leading to what some have termed an “imperial presidency.” Now, as the Constitution intended, the legislature will pass a law, the executive will execute the law, and the courts will decide disputes over the law. No amount of pearl-clutching over the loss of power for the presidency and agencies can gainsay that this is an overdue restoration of due process.”

Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (via National Review)

“The Supreme Court is simply restoring the checks and balances system vital to our democracy. It reaffirms that government agencies cannot rewrite or reinterpret the rules, almost always in a way that expands government power while burdening everyone else. Lawmaking is the responsibility of Congress, and interpreting the law is the responsibility of the judiciary, not the executive branch.”

Casey Mattox, vice president for legal strategy at Stand Together (via Washington Examiner)

“The Chevron doctrine said that when statutory language is ambiguous in cases on administrative law, courts must defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statute. It was small businesses and individuals, often with cases that had nothing to do with the environment, who were pushed around by administrative agencies without being able to get relief from a federal judge. Now they will have a chance at relief because courts will be able to interpret the law, as the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act say they must.”

Dominic Pino, Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at National Review Institute

“Overturning Chevron Is a Major Victory for the Rule of Law”

Carrie Campbell Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network (via National Review)