Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

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

23 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

agency’s  regulation as “ ‘permissible.’ ”  45 F. 4th 359, 365 
(2022).  On the other hand, we have the D. C. Circuit dis-
sent, which argues the statute is “unambiguou[s]” and that 
it plainly forecloses the agency’s new rule.  Id., at 372 (opin-
ion of Walker, J.).  And on yet a  third hand,  we have the 
First  Circuit,  which  claimed  to  have  identified  “clear  tex-
tual support” for the regulation, yet refused to say whether
it  would  “classify  [its]  conclusion  as  a  product  of  Chevron 
step one or step two.”  62 F. 4th 621, 631, 634 (2023).  As 
these cases illustrate, Chevron has turned statutory inter-
pretation into a game of bingo under blindfold, with parties
guessing at how many boxes there are and which one their 
case might ultimately fall in.

Turn now from workability to reliance.  Far from engen-
dering reliance interests, the whole point of Chevron defer-
ence is to upset them.  Under Chevron, executive officials 
can replace one “reasonable” interpretation with another at
any time, all without any change in the law itself.  The re-
sult:  Affected individuals “can never be sure of their legal 
rights and duties.”  Buffington, 598 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
12).

How bad is the problem?  Take just one example.  Brand 
X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services.
There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the ad-
ministration  of  President  George  W.  Bush  because  it  was
premised  on  a  “reasonable”  interpretation  of  the  statute. 
Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded 
the  rule  and  replaced  it  with  another.    Later  still,  during
President  Donald  J.  Trump’s  administration,  officials  re-
placed  that  rule  with  a  different  one,  all  before  President 
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention
to reverse course for yet a fourth time.  See Safeguarding
and Securing the Open Internet, 88 Fed. Reg. 76048 (2023); 
Brand X, 545 U. S., at 981–982.  Each time, the government
claimed  its  new  rule  was  just  as  “reasonable”  as  the  last.
Rather  than  promoting  reliance  by  fixing  the  meaning  of