Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 91

10 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

the  same  Congress  that  charged  the  Service  with  imple-
menting  the  Act—would  answer  that  question  with  a  re-
sounding “yes.”

A second idea is that Congress would value the agency’s
experience  with  how  a  complex  regulatory  regime  func-
tions, and with what is needed to make it effective.  Let’s 
stick with squirrels for a moment, except broaden the lens. 
In construing a term like “distinct” in a case about squir-
rels, the Service likely would benefit from its “historical fa-
miliarity”  with  how  the  term  has  covered  the  population 
segments of other species.  Martin v. Occupational Safety 
and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 153 (1991); see, 
e.g., Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 900 F. 3d 1053, 
1060–1062 (CA9 2018) (arctic grayling); Center for Biologi-
cal Diversity v. Zinke, 868 F. 3d 1054, 1056 (CA9 2017) (de-
sert eagle).  Just as a common-law court makes better deci-
sions as it sees multiple variations on a theme, an agency’s 
construction of a statutory term benefits from its unique ex-
posure to all the related ways the term comes into play.  Or 
consider,  for  another  way  regulatory  familiarity  matters, 
the example about adjusting Medicare reimbursement for
geographic wage differences.  See supra, at 6.  According to
a dictionary, the term “geographic area” could be as large
as a multi-state region or as small as a census tract.  How 
to choose?  It would make sense to gather hard information
about what reimbursement levels each approach will pro-
duce, to explore the ease of administering each on a nation-
wide basis, to survey how regulators have dealt with simi-
lar questions in the past, and to confer with the hospitals 
themselves about what makes sense.  See Kisor, 588 U. S., 
at 571 (plurality opinion) (noting that agencies are able to
“conduct factual investigations” and “consult with affected
parties”).  Congress knows the Department of Health and
Human  Services  can  do  all  those  things—and  that  courts 
cannot. 
  Still more, Chevron’s presumption reflects that resolving