Turning now directly to the question what stare decisis effect Chevron deference warrants, each of these lessons seem to me to weigh firmly in favor of the course the Court charts today: Lesson 1, because Chevron deference contravenes the law Congress prescribed in the Administrative Procedure Act. Lesson 2, because Chevron deference runs against mainstream currents in our law regarding the separation of powers, due process, and centuries-old interpretive rules that fortify those constitutional commitments. And Lesson 3, because to hold otherwise would effectively require us to endow stray statements in Chevron with the authority of statutory language, all while ignoring more considered language in that same decision and the teachings of experience.
Much more could be said about Chevron’s inconsistency with the APA...For present purposes, the short of it is that continuing to abide Chevron deference would require us to transgress the first lesson of stare decisis—the humility required of judges to recognize that our decisions must yield [pointing out the Chevron is as the majority found utterly inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act].