‘All Roads’ Lead to Conclusion That SCOTUS Should Overrule Chevron, Say Petitioners

overruling Chevron. The Supreme Court’s lack of activity on the doctrine “is not for lack of opportunities,” said the reply brief. Yet for nearly a decade, SCOTUS has instead done what Article III and the Administrative Procedure Act command, “and simply interpreted the disputed statute,” it said. The question is less whether SCOTUS should overrule Chevron, “and more whether it should let lower courts and citizens in on the news,” said the reply brief. The reality is that Chevron “has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough,” it said. The government’s pleas to retain this “misguided and reliance-destroying doctrine fall far short of the mark,” it said. The government “stumbles out of the gate,” claiming Chevron “enjoys statutory stare decisis” (to stand by things decided), said the reply brief. “In reality, Chevron’s interpretive methodology has little (if any) precedential force, and the government fails to demonstrate otherwise,” it said. Even if more traditional stare decisis factors were at play, “the case for overruling Chevron would be overwhelming,” it said. The government “barely defends” the doctrine as a constitutional and statutory matter and insists it's “rooted in historical tradition only by distorting history and ignoring what Chevron actually requires,” said the reply brief. “All roads thus lead to the conclusion” that SCOTUS should overrule Chevron, it said. But if nothing else, SCOTUS should clarify “that statutory silence does not trigger Chevron,” it said.