That is a misunderstanding of Chevron. The decisions never did automatically go in the government's favor. Courts could and did overturn regulations with Chevron in place. All that was required was that the courts defer to the regulator if the regulator had chosen to take a reasonable interpretation of the statute as written where there was ambiguity. If the court did not believe that there was ambiguity, or if the regulator's interpretation was not reasonable, the regulation was susceptible to being overturned.
The difference is that now the courts, which are not experts, will be the ones to decide which reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute to take, rather than the experts in regulatory agencies.
Overturning the Chevron case was a good one. If a law is ambiguous, the decision should not go in favor of government automatically.
That is a misunderstanding of Chevron. The decisions never did automatically go in the government's favor. Courts could and did overturn regulations with Chevron in place. All that was required was that the courts defer to the regulator if the regulator had chosen to take a reasonable interpretation of the statute as written where there was ambiguity. If the court did not believe that there was ambiguity, or if the regulator's interpretation was not reasonable, the regulation was susceptible to being overturned.
The difference is that now the courts, which are not experts, will be the ones to decide which reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute to take, rather than the experts in regulatory agencies.
- Kelcey