Should this Court reconsider the doctrine of Chevron deference?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, Congress enacted safeguards to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service cannot extend its monopoly over letter mail so as to obtain an unfair competitive advantage in package delivery, a market in which it competes with private companies. See 39 U.S.C. § 3633. The Postal Regulatory Commission’s regulations governing rates thus must “(1) prohibit the subsidization of competitive products by marketdominant products; (2) ensure that each competitive product covers its costs attributable; and (3) ensure that all competitive products collectively cover what the Commission determines to be an appropriate share of the institutional costs of the Postal Service.” Id. And “costs attributable” are defined as “the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to such product through reliably identified causal relationships.” Id. § 3631(b). In this case, the D.C. Circuit, applying Chevron, deferred to the Commission’s unexplained interpretation of “institutional costs” as only a residual category and of “reliably identified causal relationships” as minimum costs. The questions presented are: 1. Should this Court reconsider the doctrine of Chevron deference? 2. Should this Court hold that Chevron deference does not apply to an agency’s unexplained statutory interpretations? (i)