In this episode, Gwen and Marc examine Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court decision that formally overruled Chevron deference after forty years. They begin with an analogy about inconsistent babysitters to explain the core concern motivating the Court: agency interpretations that change across administrations, creating instability and unpredictability.

They then turn to the facts of the case itself, involving a federal rule requiring herring fishing companies to pay for onboard observers. Under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation likely would have survived as reasonable. Instead, the Court used the case to eliminate Chevron entirely, holding that courts must exercise “independent judgment” when interpreting statutes—even when Congress has left ambiguity.

From there, Gwen and Marc organize the critique of Loper Bright around three themes. First, they argue that the Court rewrote history by treating Chevron as a modern aberration, despite centuries of judicial deference to agency expertise. Second, they explain how the decision misunderstands modern governance, where Congress necessarily relies on agencies to interpret flexible statutory language. Third, they show how the practical consequences are already unfolding in the lower courts, producing circuit fragmentation rather than stability.

Using concrete examples—from food labeling to labor law to environmental regulation—they illustrate how replacing agency expertise with judicial interpretation affects everyday life. The episode closes by exploring the democratic implications of shifting interpretive power from politically accountable agencies to life-tenured judges.

What They Cover in This Episode

• The facts behind Loper Bright
• How Chevron worked and why it mattered
• The Court’s reading of the APA
• “Independent judgment” and the “single best reading”
• Pre-Chevron history of judicial deference
• Judges as generalists versus agency experts
• Circuit fragmentation after Chevron’s demise
• Democratic accountability and judicial power