Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

United  States  v.  Mead  Corp.,  533  U. S.  218,  243  (2001) 
(SCALIA, J., dissenting).  I am unaware of any such history 
justifying  deference  to  agency  interpretations  of  its  own 
regulations.  And  there  are  weighty  reasons  to  deny  a 
lawgiver  the  power  to  write  ambiguous  laws  and  then  be
the  judge  of  what  the  ambiguity  means.    See  Decker  v. 
Northwest  Environmental  Defense  Center,  568  U. S.  ___, 
___–___ (2013) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part) (slip op., at 1–7).  I would therefore restore the 
balance  originally  struck  by  the  APA  with  respect  to  an
agency’s  interpretation  of  its  own  regulations,  not  by 
rewriting  the  Act  in  order  to  make  up  for  Auer,  but  by
abandoning  Auer  and  applying  the  Act  as  written.    The 
agency  is  free  to  interpret  its  own  regulations  with  or
without notice and comment; but courts will decide—with 
no deference to the agency—whether that interpretation is 
correct.