Neil Gorsuch on Chevron Deference

Neil Gorsuch is a vocal opponent of Chevron deference, the doctrine requiring courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. His core position is that this practice improperly transfers Article III judicial power to Article II (Executive Branch) authorities, thereby undermining the constitutional separation of powers. He has explicitly argued that deference runs against established legal currents regarding due process and centuries-old interpretive rules, effectively giving the federal government a systematic bias in litigation. Gorsuch expressed these views while on the Tenth Circuit and then upon joining the Supreme Court, notably in concurring opinions in the very cases that ultimately overturned the doctrine.

His rejection of Chevron marks an ideological divergence from his predecessor, who had supported the doctrine on structuralist grounds, viewing it as necessary for functional governmental relationships. Gorsuch, however, employs originalism, emphasizing that judicial power necessarily encompasses statutory interpretation as it was understood since the nation's founding. He framed the issue not as one between government branches, but as a conflict between the government and the American people, arguing that the fluid interpretations permitted under Chevron trap citizens who cannot know the law with certainty. His ultimate goal is to return judges to pre-1980s interpretive rules, ensuring courts resolve cases without systemic favoritism toward the government.