Think you’re mixing up this case with Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.
This case was just about a stay being granted pending a petition for review in a lower court. They lost because they were required to issue an explanation of their reasoning for an interpretation and hadn’t.
It’s pretty ironic to do it in a decision where SCOTUS decided that the courts know better than the experts and don’t have to listen to them.
Absolutely.
Think you’re mixing up this case with Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.
This case was just about a stay being granted pending a petition for review in a lower court. They lost because they were required to issue an explanation of their reasoning for an interpretation and hadn’t.