This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, March 11, 2020. I'm Caleb Brown.

It's a fool's errand to prognosticate, perhaps Cato's Will Yeatman should get that tattooed somewhere somewhere in discussing a case about so-called

Chevron deference and how the Supreme Court looks to handle that particularly pernicious

aspect of administrative law,

Yatman did just that.

He prognosticated.

And in light of some new comments from Justice Neil Gorsuch,

here is Mr. Yatman's Mea-Culpa.

About a week ago, you and I were talking for the Cato Daily

podcast about deference and the Supreme Court had turned away a case that appeared to be one tailor-made to do away with some

deference that courts tend to give to executive agencies.

And you said that it would be a fool's errand to prognosticate exactly why the Supreme Court turned away this opportunity

to grapple with this issue once again, and yet you persisted.

So you prognosticated something, we won't commit the error of repeating your mistake here, but you are here in some ways to apologize to this audience and say I got

it wrong is that right me a copa me a copa to all your to all your

listeners I led you astray last week, I'll be it with that caveat that I mentioned.

I said it was a fool's errand and I nonetheless did it and I demonstrated that I'm a fool.

But it's a happy mistake, I'll note that.

So what has Justice Gorsuch said?

And you don't have to provide the full context here, but there are a couple of different kinds of deference

that courts give to executive agencies in the name of expediency.

What is that deference and what did Justice Gorsuch say with respect to turning away this particular case?

...