Chevron was controversial at the time it was introduced as well. The notion that courts weren’t the ultimate arbiters of what legal rules actually mean, but that judges have to defer to the legal interpretations of an executive branch agency, was not uncontroversial. It wasn’t entirely novel—some idea that agencies should get some sort of deference has been percolating around since basically the advent of the administrative state. And frankly, getting rid of Chevron won’t really end the debate either.

Ultimately, there’s two different strands to the issue. On one hand, it makes no sense to say that administrative agencies (who aren’t even necessarily staffed by lawyers) should get deference on interpretative questions regarding things like agency jurisdiction. Chevron says agencies get deference in determining their own jurisdiction and that’s batty. On the other hand, there’s an attractive principle in there that where Congress makes these highly technical statutes making trade offs about particular matter controls the agency should have discretion in figuring out how to implement those directives.