Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 71

24 

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES v. RAIMONDO 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the law, Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty 
and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself
remains unchanged.

Nor are these antireliance harms distributed equally.  So-
phisticated entities and their lawyers may be able to keep 
pace with rule changes affecting their rights and responsi-
bilities.  They may be able to lobby for new “ ‘reasonable’ ” 
agency interpretations and even capture the agencies that
issue them.  Buffington, 598 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 8, 
13).  But ordinary people can do none of those things.  They
are the ones who suffer the worst kind of regulatory whip-
lash Chevron invites. 

Consider a couple of examples.  Thomas Buffington, a vet-
eran of the U. S. Air Force, was injured in the line of duty. 
For  a  time  after  he  left  the  Air  Force,  the  Department  of 
Veterans  Affairs  (VA)  paid  disability  benefits  due  him  by 
law.  But later the government called on Mr. Buffington to 
reenter active service.  During that period, everyone agreed,
the  VA  could  (as  it  did)  suspend  his  disability  payments.
After he left active service for a second time, however, the 
VA  turned  his  patriotism  against  him.    By  law,  Congress
permitted  the  VA  to  suspend  disability  pay  only  “for  any 
period for which [a servicemember] receives active service 
pay.”  38 U. S. C. §5304(c).  But the VA had adopted a self-
serving regulation requiring veterans to file a form asking 
for the resumption of their disability pay after a second (or 
subsequent)  stint  in  active  service.    38  CFR  §3.654(b)(2) 
(2021).  Unaware of the regulation, Mr. Buffington failed to
reapply immediately.  When he finally figured out what had 
happened  and  reapplied,  the  VA  agreed  to  resume  pay-
ments going forward but refused to give Mr. Buffington all 
of the past disability payments it had withheld.  Buffington, 
598 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 1–4). 

Mr. Buffington challenged the agency’s action as incon-
sistent with Congress’s direction that the VA may suspend
disability payments only for those periods when a veteran