Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

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

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

exercising their independent judgment to resolve ambigui-
ties.  Baldwin, 589 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip 
op., at 3); see also Michigan, 576 U. S., at 761 (opinion of 
THOMAS, J.);  see  also  Perez,  575  U. S.,  at  123  (opinion  of 
THOMAS, J.).  By tying a judge’s hands, Chevron prevents
the Judiciary from serving as a constitutional check on the
Executive.  It allows “the Executive . . . to dictate the out-
come  of  cases  through  erroneous  interpretations.”    Bald-
win, 589 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 4); 
Michigan,  576  U. S.,  at  763,  n.  1  (opinion  of  THOMAS, J.);
see also Perez, 575 U. S., at 124 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  Be-
cause  the  judicial  power  requires  judges  to  exercise  their 
independent  judgment,  the  deference  that  Chevron  re-
quires contravenes Article III’s mandate. 

Chevron deference also permits the Executive Branch to
exercise powers not given to it.  “When the Government is 
called upon to perform a function that requires an exercise
of legislative, executive, or judicial power, only the vested 
recipient  of  that  power  can  perform  it.”  Department  of 
Transportation  v.  Association  of  American  Railroads,  575 
U. S.  43,  68  (2015)  (THOMAS, J.,  concurring  in  judgment).
Because the Constitution gives the Executive Branch only 
“[t]he  executive  Power,”  executive  agencies  may  constitu-
tionally  exercise  only  that  power.    Art. II,  §1,  cl. 1.    But, 
Chevron  gives  agencies  license  to  exercise  judicial  power. 
By allowing agencies to definitively interpret laws so long
as  they  are  ambiguous,  Chevron  “transfer[s]”  the  Judici-
ary’s  “interpretive  judgment  to  the  agency.”    Perez,  575 
U. S., at 124 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also Baldwin, 589 
U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 4); Michi-
gan, 576 U. S., at 761–762 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); post, at 
18 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). 

Chevron deference “cannot be salvaged” by recasting it as
deference to an agency’s “formulation of policy.”  Baldwin, 
589 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (internal quotation 
marks omitted) (slip op., at 3).  If that were true, Chevron