,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Smith v. Berryhill has a short, but important discussion of Chevron deference. #SCOTUS
2/ Amicus argued that SSA "changed [its] position during the pendency of this case." However, the statute is ambiguous, and that the agency's "longstanding interpretation" should receive deference under Chevron. 
3/ However, we have a rare case. The government argues that Chevron deference is not warranted bc "the statute unambiguously supports the Government’s new position." The Plaintiff argues "deference is inappropriate where the Government itself has rejected the interpretation."
4/ This fact pattern is very similar to the bump stock litigation. The government abandoned a longstanding definition of "machine gun," and now argues that the NFA "unambiguously supports the Government’s new position." And, the gov found that Chevron deference was not warranted.
5/ The bump stock plaintiffs argue that Chevron deference cannot be used when the government disclaims it. J. Sotomayor says this situation is "curious"
6/ The Court's next conclusion, which it crams into two sentences, is very significant: In light of King v. Burwell, a question about the "scope of judicial review" is a so-called "major questions." #ElephantsInMouseholes
7/ Unless Congress expressly delegates such authority to an agency, the presumption is that such a delegation does not exist. I wrote about King and the major question doctrine in @HarvLRev papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
8/ This discussion of Chevron is very unsatisfying, and leaves a lot of loose ends loose. The Court probably could do no more with a unanimous opinion. (The 21 footnotes are a testament to the various views.) But these questions will return in the bump stock litigation.
