Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

4 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

would mean that “agencies are unconstitutionally exercis-
ing ‘legislative Powers’ vested in Congress.”  Baldwin, 589 
U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 3) (quoting 
Art.  I,  §1).  By  “giv[ing]  the  force  of  law  to  agency  pro-
nouncements  on  matters  of  private  conduct  as  to  which
Congress  did  not  actually  have  an  intent,”  Chevron  “per-
mit[s]  a  body  other  than  Congress  to  perform  a  function
that requires an exercise of legislative power.”  Michigan, 
576 U. S., at 762 (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  No matter the gloss put on it, Chevron ex-
pands  agencies’  power  beyond  the  bounds  of  Article  II  by
permitting  them  to  exercise  powers  reserved  to  another 
branch of Government. 

Chevron  deference  was  “not  a  harmless  transfer  of 
power.”  Baldwin, 589 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) 
(slip op., at 3).  “The Constitution carefully imposes struc-
tural constraints on all three branches, and the exercise of 
power  free  of  those  accompanying  restraints  subverts  the
design of the Constitution’s ratifiers.”  Ibid.  In particular,
the Founders envisioned that “the courts [would] check the 
Executive by applying the correct interpretation of the law.” 
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 4).  Chevron was thus a fundamental 
disruption of our separation of powers.  It improperly strips
courts  of  judicial  power  by  simultaneously  increasing  the 
power of executive agencies.  By overruling Chevron, we re-
store this aspect of our separation of powers.  To safeguard
individual  liberty,  “[s]tructure  is  everything.”   A.  Scalia, 
Foreword:  The  Importance  of  Structure  in  Constitutional 
Interpretation,  83  Notre  Dame  L. Rev.  1417,  1418  (2008). 
Although the Court finally ends our 40-year misadventure
with Chevron deference, its more profound problems should
not be overlooked.  Regardless of what a statute says, the
type of deference required by Chevron violates the Consti-
tution.