I'm not sure what you mean by 'both' courts, Robert's has been lead justice for something like two decades. The pre and post conservative super majority is a di

I'm not sure what you mean by 'both' courts, Robert's has been lead justice for something like two decades. The pre and post conservative super majority is a distinction. Regardless, legislatures are not going to now create less ambiguous legislation (they are not experts, they do not understand nuances they are creating, nor do they really want to clarify them even if they did - cause they would get blamed) The thing i really want to point out - Overturning Chevron removes power from the executive branch and gives it to the judicial branch. Instead of an executive agency (which contains subject matter experts) making a good faith interpretation, it would now be up to a court instead. Congress could amend laws to fix ambiguous legislation, but they don't, won't, and it's too much (even if congress were interested to do so). Thus, there is no power going back to the legislature here that did not exist previously (if congress is not happy with how an ambiguous law they wrote is executed, they could always have and can still amend it). Thus, it's a shift from executive branch to judicial. This opens the door to shopping around for judges when an agency does something you don't like. (Per Harry Litman's analysis and opinion) this is perhaps the biggest shift of power from executive to judicial in decades.