We will hearent next in case 22451, local right enterprise vers raimdo mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, this case commercial fishing his heart. Space on board the vehicle vessels are tighand margins e tighter still. Therefore, for my client having to carry federal observers on board is a burdenbuhaving to pay their salaries is a crippling blow. Congress recognizes much by strictly limiting the circumstances in which domestic Fishing Vessels can be battle with monitoring costs and capping emat 2 3 of the value of the catch. The agency showed no such rerat requiring monitoring of 50 of the trips and a cause of 20 of eiannual returns. Nonetheless the cot deferred to the agency because it blew view the stat signment. There is no justification for giving the tide to the government. Both the apaand constitution of what his principles ca for de novo review asking only whatisthe best reading of the statute. Asking instead is the st ambiguous is fundamtay misguided. The whole point was to bring clarity and not to enfy ambiguity. The government defends this practice not is the be ring of the apa by invoking starter sizes. That is doubly problematic. Thise is only chevrons methodology and title to du we have beef with the chevron Clean Air Act holding and we cannot take issue with apholding because it failed to mention that statue. Secondalof the factors point in favor of over rudy overruling the methodology, unworkable as its threshold is hopelessly ambiguous. It is also a reliance destroying doctrine, because it is a taste agency flipflopping. The reality here is the evron to step has to go and should be replaced withon one question, what is the best reading of the statue . I welcome the course qutions. Youve heard the government for th generals gunt with the use of mandamus mandamus as a basis for deference. Could you comment on that . My understandg mandamus is the duty has to be clear before it actually lies. I would like ur comment on that. Absolutely, juicthomas. I think mandamus is a critical recognitioofthe fact that congress can remedy the availabiliesin particular circumstances. That is the ghway to understand the mandamus standard. That is quite different from telling the court they are engage in as congress clearly did. But then say there is a point in which you cannotctlly give us the best sw because you are deferring. I think it is poant from a seraon of powers purpose to understand it is not as remedi, ere is an accountability difference. I suppose co could decide we are going to go back to a world where the only review action is mandamus. Congress would then be fully responsible for that highly unpopular decisi that is the difference, the fundamental difference froma separation of powers stamp betwn a limitation on remedy and specifically telling th court in the apa specifically you have the Interpretive Authority over stueno less than constitutional issues, but then overlaying a doctri that says what weare doing is interpretation. That is the critical thing about the interchange between footnote 9 and footnote 11. Footte9 tells you as clearly as i can what you are doing a statutory interpretation. In footnote 11 it says that a certain inyou stop doing statutory interpretation,en though you think there is a better answer. You refer Different Branch of government. It is not the branch the framers gave the interpretive authittwo. It is the branch the framers gave the implementing authority. I thk from that standpoint chevron is a fundamental and egregiously wrong decision that gets it wrong on the basis of paration of powers. There is such a contention in this. Interpretive authority mean discretion. It means therare multiple meetings that you can take from meing and someone has to choose among those meetings. It seems like most people agree if thestue uses reasonable that congress is delegating the definition reasonable to the agen. The agency is deciding is reasonable within some telimits either set within thstatue or within thlaw. The point is, it is great rhetoric, mr. Clement, but we do delegate. We have recognized allegations to agencies from the beginning the founding of interpretation. I am at a loss to understand wherthargument comes from. I think there is a difference between recognizing discretion and recognizing delegation. There are certain statutory terms as you yourself went out that properly construedby the courinitively would give the agencya realm of discretion in which tooperate. There are other terms in which it is really a binary question. The fundamental feeling of evn is it doesnt do a good job of distinguishing between the two. The best example isbrand ex. Broadband communications are either Formation Service or telecommunications service. It might be hard to figure out which one, but there cannot one of the tuesday mx on thursday. Wait a minute, it may be binary to you. I do know witthdevelopment of technology and with the development of how that is implemented in termof transmission and the internet that over time that is into change. The same issue even in the case at we are in right now, there re two areas the Congress Look that and you that reviewed for easy travel for obvious reasons. There is very lile outside once those ships leave thathe u. S. Government can do to them. E other, i thk was the North Pacific area, but the point is that doesnt mean that similar problems didnt are later and that the broad rd giving the secretary the wer to monitor animplement measures to ensure that his conservation goals were being followed wasnt given to the agency. Those are e facts and what we should be looking at in my judgment. Is this measure commensurate with what drove a similar measure, not identical, in the other two examples. E agency should have first crack at that. If they are not similar the court will look and say decision was arbitrary and capricious. Ey are similar we might say okay, this is all right. I dont know the answer. We really havent dug into that. It is just a point that i am making, which is things change on the ground. A definition you give today may not hold up to new facts. Backs do change on the ground that is probably probable chevron and brand x. If there is a difficulty in classifying oadband today, the difficult to get the statue was la passed in 1996. Going out of 2023 broadband is a 1996 inFormation Service or 1996 Telecommunications Services the granddaddy of a problem. It does have a na answer. Bringing it home to the statue, what i would sais if do the chevron ambiguity test if i never like a o it in the statue or maybe for meeople carry. I think that one is pretty clea to say that word is ambiguous i want to go to step two. T if you look at the statue as a whole. If you look at it the way you would in any other context, i think what you would see if this is a asc case, i forget the exact phse the point is you have a situation that in the worst fishery e Country Congress that you may not not musthave monitors paid for by the indury but if you do that you must have the fee at 2 3 of e value of the catch. A congress thathat with the most well healed fishery in the nation, i do thg possibly convey the authority to the agency to say witha much fferent fishery in the atlantic where its Small Business people, whe going to let you do effectively the same thing, but we are going to let u do it to the turn tes of 20 of their annual returns. If you strip chevron this is a fairly easy case where you just make congress had this question in mind in one place or actually replaces the be specific. With every domestic fishery they only gave it in two instances. In both they said it can be no more than 2 or 3 . If you are arguing the statue is not ambiguous on that question. If i am arguing the reading of the statute is that my client wins. If i have to, i would contemplating the result. That may be right. You are saying this is aa case where there cobe a number of interpretations. I donk that is coming to grips with the chevron question i hope it is. What i would say is exactly what i heard Justice Kavanaugh say, is i do not think there is a different rule in cases where agency is a party or if agency is not. In both cases you cannot get to a certain and say this is hard. I think the law has run out. In both cases you arsupposed to take it all the way to coming up with yr st answer. You were just saying the principal answerthe question. If it answers the question, i guess i dont understand how you even get to the chevron issue. Chevron that one you would give the same in the. Maybe you would, but nobody knows where step two against her ends. I mean i suppose now taking the hits from kaiser, whh is about something not chevron usa of course you would apply the canons of statorconstruction before you get to step two. Tht is in every other case you apply those cannons. If youre not sure about the answer you du off the back and see if there are some he cannons. Because u ve no other option, what chevron is it is a recognition that in certain ses you apply all thostos and the conclusion you come up wi icongress hasnt spoken to this issue. If you had no otheopon, you are a court and there is a case before you, you try as hard as you can. Even though you know you are basically on your own. When there is an agency what chevron says is now there e two possible decisionmakers. There is the agency and er is the court. What we think is that congress would have preferred the agen to resolve this question. When congressional direio cannot be found, because of th agencys expertise. Because of e agencys experience, because the agency understands ho this question fits wiin the statutory scheme. It is not a question that the court cod t do it. It is a question of once congressional direction cannot be found, who doesess want to do it . Justice kagan , i do not agree with you that the law ru out, even though there is an agency there. I would giveyothis, if i did i would say at that point t give the tie to the citizen. Lets not give e tie to the agency. I dot ink is what we would do. You will give the tie to the citizen and i to the agency. Chevron is about what congress want. You can call it fictional all you want, and we have lots of presumptions that operate with respect to statutory interetion. This is just one of th. It is just saying congress understands as well as anybody diffeninstitutionals comparative tributes and virtues. It does not want courts making, i me it is law,buit is licy laden judgments. Once congress cannot find direction. If we want to talk about what coneswants we probably should advert to the fact that we do havanamicus briefing in this case from the use. It does t nt chevron. It has total control over chevron. It can reverse it tomorrow with respecto any titular statute and with respect to statue nelly and it hasnt. For 40 years it has exceeded except for super rare cases. It has basically said this is the background rule. It gives us a default rule from which to write statute. We have except accepted. I am not sure everybody in Congress Wants to overle chevron. Evyby in congress doesnt want to do everything. It is real c be for some members of congress an not have to tackle on the hard questions and allow for their fries get them everything they want. Even if congress did it, the presenwould be to. I think the third problem, even more problematic, if you back to that fundamental premise of chevron that when eris silence or ambiguity we know the agency wanteto delegated delegate to the agency it is fictional and in a particular way. It assumes ambiguity is always delegation of. But it is not. More often when biity yes, i dont have enou ves in congress to make it clear. I want to leave ambiguous and that is how we are going to get over the hurdle. We will give it to my friends in the agency and they will take it from here. That is thawi the eight a phenomenon we have major problems in society that are not being solved. Instead of doing the hard work of legislation we have to compromise with the other side at the risk of maybe throwing a primary challeng you rely on a execute anch grant to do what you want. It is not hypothetical. You say we end gridlock, which we have now. What i am chevron is a big factor contributing. I would inthe uniquely 21st century phenomena of cryptocurrency would have been addressed by congress. I certainly wouldve thought that wouldve been true in the wake of the ftx debacle. It hasnt. Why . Because there is an agency head out there who thkse already has the authority to adess this uniquely 21stcentury problem tha couple of statues passed in the 1930s. Hes going to waive his want and say the words investment contracts are ambiguous and that is want to suck all of this into my regulatory orbit, en though when that same person is a professor that this robably a job for the cfdc. I was just gointo say lets assume for the sake of argument that i agree that in 706 congress has spoken to the prlewe are not applying a fictional presumptio congress has told us we want the court to decide questions of law. Solicitor general in the last gunt talks about how litigants will be lining up for state cases decided under step two to reopen challenges to the agencys interpretation. What you o say about the destructive consequences of erruling . I think the solicitor general will be sinthe exact opposite if this Court Overrules this decision. What uld say is this court has moved away amically from certain methods of teretation. More dramatically than just we look at legislative History Lesson we used to. Implied causes of action as far as i can tell ourdad. That didnt mean that every decision that s cided in the battled days was ruled. That is a little different. Those apply causes of actions, the court was saying this is what the statute means. I do not apply to the cause of action or whatever. This would be different. The court would just be sang it may not be the best, but the agencys interpre is reasonable. It does not settle the same way that some of those old implied causofaction cases did. If you dont want there to disruption all you have to do is make the precise level generality that you alluded to. I would think in every one these chevron cases the question is is the agencys terpretation of the statute lawful . If the cot has already held yes, i would think that would settle thmatter. As i say in a brief, thly reason i have any doubt is because of brand brand x is a huge embarrassment for the government and the governments friend. I looked through the amicus and i unted 13 amicus briefs. Only two sided brand will be nice for that decision to just go away,wouldnt it . Sorry, Justice Thomas. Laugh if that absolutely makes clear is is a reliance destroying doctrine. Frankly if you saat chevron is over d all of those step two cases that were dedeare going to have starry sizes affect because of e level of generality point, you will be giving you stability to the law. Ll be improving stability. That is an important distinctiofr kaiser. The kaiser doctrine r had its brand x moment where this court make cleathagency can flip 180 degrees. Indeed in kaiser itself it suggests that the opposite. Here with chevron we know this is a reliance destroying doctrine here is another thing to think about in terms kaiser. As i read the courts decision in addition to the fact that we know it doesnt directly speak to chevron, i also read it as all this at the unit a special justification. I ink weve offered special justifications in droves. Specjustification beyond the decision. I do not of a case where you would defer when the lent decision did not cite the relevant statue at l. This would be a different world if chevron went in anrussell with 706 is at despite all textural indication it forecloses review of statute. I suppose i would veto be here making every singlestarry decisis argument. That is not what chevron it did not mention the relevant patch you. I do not want to be seen as running away from the starry decisis factors. I am happy to walk through all of them. I think all of them cut in our favor. The decision is dously unworkable. Nobody knows what ambiguity is. Even my learned friend on the othesi says there is no formula. That is an elaboration of at the government said the last time, which is nobody knows what ambiguity means. Lets talk about reliance and talk about the brand x problems that are very serious problems. I love the brand x case, brought their regulation provesa perfect example of the flipflop that can happen, but inot my only example. There are amicus brief to talk about the National Labor of relations were flipflopping on everything. Ask little siabout stability and reliance interest as their fate changefr administration to administration. And then you get to the real worlefcts on citizens that Justice Gorsuch alluded to. Wod like to emphasize its effect on congress. The court waorinally doing chevron it was looking only at a comparison between article two and article three. I ink you got even that tion wrong. It failed to think about the incentesit was giving the article on an. That is what 40 years of experience has shown us. In 40 years it has shown that it is virtually impossible to legislate a meaningful issues and major questions, if u will. Righnoroughly half the people in congress at any given int ofwant to have their friends in the executanch. Their choice on a controversial issue compromised and forges a longterm solution at the cost of maybe getting a primary allenge of orange dad, just call up your buddused to be your call staffer in the executive branch now and have him give everything on your wish list, based on a broad statutory term. My friends asked for empirical evidence, i think you just have lk at this or stockett. s been one major rule after another. It hasnt been onmar statue after another. I wouldve thought Congress Might have addressed the loan forgiveness if it was such an important issue to on party in congress. I wouldveght they would affix the eviction moratorium. I could go on and on. Ey dont get addressed because chevron makes it so easy r em not to tackle the hasues and forge a permanent solution. My friends on the otr de also talked about this great. It leads to uniformity in the la i do nothing that is in itself. If it were up to meifyou think uniformity was so great lets have uniformity and the umb on the scale of the side of citizen. The kind ofuniformity that you get your chevron is something only the government can love. Every in e country has to agree on the current administrations view of a debatable statue. You dont get the kind of uniformity you actually want, a stable decision to assess th is what the statute means. Mr. Clement, can asked the meuestion i asked mr. Martinez about why chevron was initially popular . Pe