The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

We can read the opinion so that there's zero deference, that there's kind of some deference,

we'll call it Skidmore, or that there's more deference that the court actually didn't change Chevron at all

despite all this lofty rhetoric. It's the Lawfair Podcast. I'm Alan Rosenstein,

associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Law Fair.

Co-hosting today with Molly Reynolds, Senior Editor at Law Fair and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

And we're talking with Bridget Ding assistant professor of law at the Ohio State

University and Nick Bednar associate professor of law at the University of

Minnesota. So we'll have to see I mean when I talk about kind of waiting for the

chips to fall what I mean is both you know what are the lower courts going to be up to and also what kind of incentives does or doesn't this shift, you know, for Congress.

Today we're discussing one of the highest profile cases from the Supreme Court term

Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo which overturned the decades-long Chevron

doctrine about judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own statutes.

All right Bridget, let me start with you. to agency interpretations of their own statutes.

All right, Bridget, let me start with you.

So I think it'd be helpful as background

for our listeners, especially those listeners

who don't have the luxury of thinking of ad law all day every day.

What was the state of the law until the end of this Supreme Court term

...