Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 111.0

30 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

placed such a “statute-by-statute evaluation (which was as-
suredly a font of uncertainty and litigation) with an across-
the-board  presumption.”  A.  Scalia,  Judicial  Deference  to 
Administrative  Interpretations  of  Law,  1989  Duke  L.  J. 
511, 516.  As a lover of the predictability that rules create, 
Justice  Scalia  thought  the  latter  “unquestionably  better.” 
Id., at 517. 

On the other side of the balance, the most important stare 
decisis factor—call it the “jolt to the legal system” issue—
weighs  heavily  against  overruling  Chevron.  Dobbs,  597 
U. S.,  at  357  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  concurring  in  judgment).
Congress and agencies alike have relied on Chevron—have 
assumed its existence—in much of their work for the last 
40 years.  Statutes passed during that time reflect the ex-
pectation that Chevron would allocate interpretive author-
ity between agencies and courts.  Rules issued during the
period likewise presuppose that statutory ambiguities were
the agencies’ to (reasonably) resolve.  Those agency inter-
pretations  may  have  benefited  regulated  entities;  or  they
may have protected members of the broader public.  Either 
way, private parties have ordered their affairs—their busi-
ness  and  financial  decisions,  their  health-care  decisions, 
their  educational  decisions—around  agency  actions  that 
are suddenly now subject to challenge.  In Kisor, this Court 
refused to overrule Auer because doing so would “cast doubt 
on” many longstanding constructions of rules, and thereby 
upset settled expectations.  588 U. S., at 587 (opinion of the 
Court).  Overruling Chevron, and thus raising new doubts
about agency constructions of statutes, will be far more dis-
ruptive.

The majority tries to alleviate concerns about a piece of
that problem: It states that judicial decisions that have up-
held agency action as reasonable under Chevron should not 
be  overruled  on  that  account  alone.  See  ante,  at  34–35. 
That is all to the good: There are thousands of such deci-
sions, many settled for decades.  See supra, at 26.  But first,