The thing about Chevron deference is, it was already limited on its face: it only operated at all in places where the statute is silent or ambiguous, and only c

The thing about Chevron deference is, it was already limited on its face: it only operated at all in places where the statute is silent or ambiguous, and only commanded deference to "reasonable" interpretations. If the interpretation in Loper Bright was not "reasonable," the Supreme Court already had the tools it needed to reverse the agency without breaking any precedent. If on the other hand it was reasonable, why should the courts be getting involved? Removing Chevron simply allows the courts to select their preferred policy outcomes more directly.