Among them at first was Antonin Scalia, who joined the court after Chevron was decided.
Chevron deference also had its fair number of critics in conservative legal circles.
Many of them saw the doctrine as an abdication of the judicial branch’s responsibility to interpret the law.
Roberts’s decision is replete with references to the importance of the federal judiciary and its paramount role in interpreting statues.
Most of the court’s conservative justices had already voiced criticism of Chevron deference.
They relied on it in fewer and fewer cases and, in some instances, outright ignored it when it would otherwise be relevant.
In Loper Bright, the court could have ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the law was not “reasonable,” thereby bypassing questions about Chevron deference itself. »
