From the intro to a new law article (footnotes omitted):
In its 2024 decision overruling the decades-old Chevron doctrine directing judges to accept an
agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, the Supreme Court declares:
“agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” This Article
makes clear how profoundly blinkered an assertion of judicial hubris this statement is. We present
findings from a qualitative empirical study of how agencies work with the statutes that give them
authority to act, showing that interpreting statutes to ensure that they have effect in the world is at
the heart of agency competence. Loper-Bright, much like the Court’s recent supercharging of the
“major questions doctrine,” rests on two flawed assumptions . . . .
Anya Bernstein & Cristina Rodríguez, Working with Statutes, forthcoming Tex. L. Rev. 2025)(emphasis added).
I agree, and I recommend this article to all who have serious interest in the Court and are concerned about it trajectory.