Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 107.0

26 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

p.  27;  App.  to  id.,  at  68a–72a  (collecting  cases).  Lower 
courts have applied the Chevron framework on thousands 
upon thousands of occasions.  See K. Barnett & C. Walker, 
Chevron and Stare Decisis, 31 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 475, 477, 
and  n. 11  (2024)  (noting  that  at  last  count,  Chevron  was 
cited in more than 18,000 federal-court decisions).  The Ki-
sor Court observed, when upholding Auer, that “[d]eference
to  reasonable  agency  interpretations  of  ambiguous  rules 
pervades  the  whole  corpus  of  administrative  law.”  588 
U. S., at 587 (opinion of the Court).  So too does deference 
to  reasonable  agency  interpretations  of  ambiguous  stat-
utes—except more so.  Chevron is as embedded as embed-
ded gets in the law.

The majority says differently, because this Court has ig-
nored Chevron lately; all that is left of the decision is a “de-
caying husk with bold pretensions.”  Ante, at 33.  Tell that 
to the D. C. Circuit, the court that reviews a large share of
agency  interpretations,  where  Chevron  remains  alive  and 
well.  See,  e.g.,  Lissack  v.  Commissioner,  68  F.  4th  1312, 
1321–1322 (2023); Solar Energy Industries Assn. v. FERC, 
59 F. 4th 1287, 1291–1294 (2023).  But more to the point: 
The  majority’s  argument  is  a  bootstrap.    This  Court  has 
“avoided deferring under Chevron since 2016” (ante, at 32) 
because  it  has  been  preparing  to  overrule  Chevron  since 
around that time.  That kind of self-help on the way to re-
versing precedent has become almost routine at this Court. 
Stop  applying  a  decision  where  one  should;  “throw  some 
gratuitous criticisms into a couple of opinions”; issue a few 
separate  writings  “question[ing  the  decision’s]  premises” 
(ante,  at  30);  give  the  whole  process  a  few  years  . . .  and 
voila!—you have a justification for overruling the decision. 
Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. 
878, 950 (2018) (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (discussing the over-
ruling of Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977)); 
see also, e.g., Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U. S. 
507,  571–572  (2022)  (SOTOMAYOR, J.,  dissenting)  (similar