please read the Heritage Foundation article “The World After Chevron,” by Paul Larkin (https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/the-world-after-chevron). As you know, Heritage is a conservative think tank so you will generally see a conservative view but don’t be restricted, form your own. The case is Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005) , 467 US 837 (1984). How do think the current Supreme Court would rule on a case that came before it that addressed a similar agency interpretation in the future? Would it defer to the agency? What about the two-pronged test to which Mr. Larkin refers? Have there been more recent Supreme Court decisions that would inform your opinion on similar topics? How would you address the questions Mr. Larkin asks in the article, specifically “It might be useful to ask, however, what the world would look like if Chevron were legislatively or judicially overruled. Would the federal courts still give deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute? If so, how much deference? Would the courts defer to an agency even if they would have construed the statute differently? Would the courts treat the agency’s opinion as if it were a law review article? Does all the hoopla over Chevron matter very much in the long run?"
