Hacker News Reader

Chevron just said that courts must defer to any reasonable interpretation of the statute by the agency. Getting rid of that just means that courts get to decide what words like “screening” mean. It doesn’t mean Congress needs to explicitly approve every method.

Chevron doesn’t change anything here. Checking IDs easily falls within the scope of the word “screening,” no matter who is deciding the meaning of that term.

To be fair, that's not exactly what Loper Bright says. It holds that the courts should read the statute independently and not assume that Agency rules or procedures are prima facie controlling where the statute is ambiguous.

That's not what the end of Chevron deference means. It means that if Congress didn't specifically approve this method, a court may find it illegal much more easily than was previously the case. The deference in "Chevron deference" was from the courts towards administrative agencies.