Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 53

6 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

usurp lawmaking powers vested in periodically elected rep-
resentatives.  But one that makes perfect sense if what is
sought is a neutral party “to interpret and apply” the law 
without  fear  or  favor  in  a  dispute  between  others.    2  The 
Works of James Wilson 161 (J. Andrews ed. 1896) (Wilson); 
see  Osborn  v.  Bank  of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  738,  866 
(1824).

The  constrained  view  of  the  judicial  power  that  runs
through  our  Constitution  carries  with  it  familiar  implica-
tions, ones the framers readily acknowledged.  James Mad-
ison, for example, proclaimed that it would be a “fallacy” to 
suggest that judges or their precedents could “repeal or al-
ter” the Constitution or the laws of the United States.  Let-
ter to N. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 The Writings of James Mad-
ison  477  (G.  Hunt  ed.  1910).    A  court’s  opinion,  James 
Wilson added, may be thought of as “effective la[w]” “[a]s to 
the parties.”  Wilson 160–161.  But as in England, Wilson
said, a prior judicial decision could serve in a future dispute
only as “evidence” of the law’s proper construction.  Id., at 
160;  accord,  1  J.  Kent,  Commentaries  on  American  Law 
442–443 (1826).

The framers also recognized that the judicial power de-
scribed  in  our  Constitution  implies,  as  the  judicial  power
did in England, a power (and duty) of discrimination when
it comes to assessing the “evidence” embodied in past deci-
sions.  So, for example, Madison observed that judicial rul-
ings “repeatedly confirmed ” may supply better evidence of 
the law’s meaning than isolated or aberrant ones.  Letter to 
C. Ingersoll (June 1831), in 4 Letters and Other Writings of 
James  Madison  184  (1867)  (emphasis  added).    Extending
the thought, Thomas Jefferson believed it would often take
“numerous decisions” for the meaning of new statutes to be-
come truly “settled.”  Letter to S. Jones (July 1809), in 12
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 299 (A. Bergh ed. 1907). 
From the start, too, American courts recognized that not
everything found in a prior decision was entitled to equal