[amgreg]

This case is about whose interpretation gets to fill in the gaps.

The statute (APA) requires courts to form an independent judgment about the gaps.

The Chevron doctrine required courts in certain cases to set this judgment aside in favor of an agency’s judgment—-basically on the basis that the agencies are closer to the problems and know better.

This setting aside may be the better outcome, however it is not explicitly specified in the statute (APA).

Ultimately, if Congress wants this to be the case, they /can/ amend the statute (APA), effectively enshrining the Chevron doctrine.

At the end of the day, the court’s decision here rests on statutory interpretation (not constitutional doctrine) so Congress could change the outcome by amending the statute (APA) to explicitly codify Chevron. This would be achieved with its ordinary legislative power (Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution).

The court’s decision does effectively put the ball back in Congress’ court.