Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-402_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

BALDWIN v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

  Although I authored Brand X, “it is never too late to ‘sur-
rende[r]  former  views  to  a  better  considered  position.’ ”  
South  Dakota  v.  Wayfair,  Inc.,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018) 
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1) (quoting McGrath v. 
Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, 178 (1950) (Jackson, J., concur-
ring)).  Brand X appears to be inconsistent with the Consti-
tution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and tradi-
tional  tools  of  statutory  interpretation.    Because  I  would 
revisit  Brand  X,  I  respectfully  dissent  from  the  denial  of 
certiorari. 

I 
  My  skepticism  of  Brand  X  begins  at  its  foundation— 
Chevron deference.  In 1984, a bare quorum of six Justices
decided Chevron.  The Court reasoned that “if [a] statute is
silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the
question  for  the  court  is  whether  the  agency’s  answer  is
based  on  a  permissible  construction  of  the  statute.”    467 
U. S., at 843.  The decision rests on the fiction that silent or 
ambiguous  statutes  are  an  implicit  delegation  from  Con-
gress  to  agencies.  Id.,  at  843–844.  Chevron  is  in  serious 
tension with the Constitution, the APA, and over 100 years
of judicial decisions.1 

A 
Chevron  compels  judges  to  abdicate  the  judicial  power 
without constitutional sanction.  The Vesting Clause of Ar-
ticle III gives “[t]he judicial Power of the United States” to
“one  supreme  Court,  and  . . .  such  inferior  Courts  as  the 
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”  §1. 

—————— 

1 As I have previously noted, Chevron arguably sets out an “interpre-
tive too[l]” and so may not be entitled to stare decisis treatment.  Perez v. 
Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 114, n. 1 (2015) (opinion concur-
ring in judgment) (citing C. Nelson, Statutory Interpretation 701 (2011)).
The same can be said of National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. 
Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967 (2005).