Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with bold pre-
tensions.
  Nor  has  Chevron  been  the  sort  of  “ ‘stable  background’ 
rule” that fosters meaningful reliance.  Post, at 8, n. 1 (opin-
ion of KAGAN, J.) (quoting Morrison v. National Australia 
Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. 247, 261 (2010)).  Given our constant 
tinkering with and eventual turn away from Chevron, and 
its inconsistent application by the lower courts, it instead is 
hard to see how anyone—Congress included—could reason-
ably  expect  a  court  to  rely  on  Chevron  in  any  particular 
case.  And  even  if  it  were  possible  to  predict  accurately
when courts will apply Chevron, the doctrine “does not pro-
vide ‘a clear or easily applicable standard, so arguments for
reliance  based  on  its  clarity  are  misplaced.’ ”    Janus,  585 
U. S.,  at  927  (quoting  South  Dakota  v.  Wayfair,  Inc.,  585 
U. S. 162, 186 (2018)).  To plan on Chevron yielding a par-
ticular result is to gamble not only that the doctrine will be
invoked,  but  also  that  it  will  produce  readily  foreseeable 
outcomes and the stability that comes with them.  History
has proved neither bet to be a winning proposition.

Rather than safeguarding reliance interests, Chevron af-
firmatively destroys them.  Under Chevron, a statutory am-
biguity, no matter why it is there, becomes a license author-
izing an agency to change positions as much as it likes, with 
“[u]nexplained  inconsistency”  being  “at  most  . . .  a  reason 
for holding an interpretation to be . . . arbitrary and capri-
cious.”  Brand X, 545 U. S., at 981.  But statutory ambigu-
ity, as we have explained, is not a reliable indicator of ac-
tual  delegation  of  discretionary  authority  to  agencies. 
Chevron thus allows agencies to change course even when 
Congress has given them no power to do so.  By its sheer 
breadth,  Chevron  fosters  unwarranted  instability  in  the
law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency action 
in an eternal fog of uncertainty.
  Chevron  accordingly  has  undermined  the  very  “rule  of
law” values that stare decisis exists to secure.  Michigan v.