Comment by scythe

1 year ago

I think it's pretty unlikely that the Chevron doctrine would be overturned completely. The specifics of the case before the Court involve a case where the NMFS has interpreted a fisheries act to require fishers to pay the salaries of government monitors, simply because the act does not specify who should pay the salaries. The more reasonable objection is whether "reasonable interpretation" under Chevron should be limited to prevent the creation of affirmative powers out of thin air. As Wikipedia puts it:

> Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

The initial "overrule Chevron" seems like a DITF [1] and the latter is probably what the plaintiffs are hoping to achieve. Granted, I find it hard to trust a Court that overruled PP v. Casey, but most of this Court's other rulings, at least, have not been as extreme.