Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 198.0

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 120 (2000)

123

Syllabus

created a distinct scheme for addressing the subject, and that scheme
excludes any role for FDA regulation. Pp. 143–159.

(d) Finally, the Court’s inquiry is shaped, at least in some measure,
by the nature of the question presented. Chevron deference is prem-
ised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit dele-
gation from Congress to the agency to ﬁll in the statutory gaps. See
In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason
467 U. S., at 844.
to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an im-
plicit delegation. This is hardly an ordinary case. Contrary to the
agency’s position from its inception until 1995, the FDA has now as-
serted jurisdiction to regulate an industry constituting a signiﬁcant por-
tion of the American economy.
In fact, the FDA contends that, were it
to determine that tobacco products provide no “reasonable assurance of
safety,” it would have the authority to ban cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco entirely.
It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the
determination as to whether the sale of tobacco products would be regu-
lated, or even banned, to the FDA’s discretion in so cryptic a fashion.
See MCI Telecommunications, supra, at 231. Given tobacco’s unique
political history, as well as the breadth of the authority that the FDA
has asserted, the Court is obliged to defer not to the agency’s expansive
construction of the statute, but to Congress’ consistent judgment to
deny the FDA this power. Pp. 159–161.

(e) No matter how important, conspicuous, and controversial the
issue, and regardless of how likely the public is to hold the Executive
Branch politically accountable, an administrative agency’s power to reg-
ulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of
authority from Congress. Courts must take care not to extend a stat-
ute’s scope beyond the point where Congress indicated it would stop.
E. g., United States v. Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U. S. 784,
800. P. 161.

153 F. 3d 155, afﬁrmed.

O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., ﬁled
a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.,
joined, post, p. 161.

Solicitor General Waxman argued the cause for petition-
ers. With him on the briefs were Acting Assistant Attor-
ney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Schultz, Irving L. Gorn-
stein, Eugene Thirolf, Douglas Letter, Gerald C. Kell, Chris-