Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 110.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

29 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

interpretation?    Once  again,  I  could  stretch  my  mind  and 
think up a few edge cases, but for the most part, the answer
is  an  easy  yes  or  no.  The  major  questions  exception  is,  I
acknowledge,  different:  There,  many  judges  have  indeed 
disputed  its  nature  and  scope.  Compare,  e.g.,  West  Vir-
ginia, 597 U. S., at 721–724, with id., at 764–770 (KAGAN, 
J., dissenting).  But that disagreement concerns, on every-
one’s view, a tiny subset of all agency interpretations.  For 
the most part, the exceptions that so upset the majority re-
quire  merely  a  rote,  check-the-box  inquiry.  If  that  is  the 
majority’s idea of a “dizzying breakdance,” ante, at 32, the 
majority needs to get out more.

And anyway, difficult as compared to what?  The major-
ity’s  prescribed  way  of  proceeding  is  no  walk in  the  park. 
First, the majority makes clear that what is usually called 
Skidmore deference continues to apply.  See ante, at 16–17. 
Under  that  decision,  agency  interpretations  “constitute  a 
body  of  experience  and  informed  judgment”  that  may  be
“entitled  to  respect.”  Skidmore  v.  Swift  &  Co.,  323  U. S. 
134, 140 (1944).  If the majority thinks that the same judges 
who argue today about where “ambiguity” resides (see ante, 
at 30) are not going to argue tomorrow about what “respect” 
requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed.  Second, the 
majority directs courts to comply  with the varied ways in
which Congress in fact “delegates discretionary authority”
to agencies.  Ante, at 17–18.  For example, Congress may
authorize  an  agency  to  “define[ ]”  or  “delimit[ ]”  statutory 
terms or concepts, or to “fill up the details” of a statutory 
scheme.  Ante,  at  17,  and  n. 5.  Or  Congress  may  use,  in
describing  an  agency’s  regulatory  authority,  inherently
“flexib[le]”  language  like  “appropriate”  or  “reasonable.” 
Ante, at 17, and n. 6.  Attending to every such delegation,
as the majority says, is necessary in a world without Chev-
ron.  But that task involves complexities of its own.  Indeed, 
one reason Justice Scalia supported Chevron was that it re-