Comment by losvedir

> shift that determination from agency specialists to judges

Again, that's still not my reading of it. The determination is still done by the agency, right? This is purely about the recourse of folks who don't like what the agency has decided and the futility of appealing it or not.

I feel like both you here and the original poster I replied to are implicitly saying that an agency only truly has the ability to implement laws based on expert qualifications if there's no "check" on them. But this isn't really true for Congress, is it? They make laws around specific topics based on expert input all the time, whether it be around trade or cryptography or whatever, while still having the courts sit above them with the ability to hear out someone who thinks the law is unconstitutional. How is this any different?

It's true that without Chevron, there's more freedom to appeal an agency's decisions. But as a general principle (i.e. not this specific moment in time but say 20 years from now), it seems just as likely to me that an agency is politicized, paid for by corporate donors, etc, as the courts, so it's not clear to me that an un-appealable agency decision is better than one that can be appealed.

Edge cases make great news, but I suspect in our sprawling administrative framework of government agencies, the vast, vast majority of interpretation of laws is done by experts, is relatively fair, and has gone and will continue to go unchallenged. So I don't think the characterization that "interpretation of laws by agencies will move to judges from experts" is fair, on the whole. Maybe only on the controversial parts where there are interests on all sides, but then maybe that's a fair place to have that, too.