Should this Court overrule Kisor v. Wilkie, Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and direct federal courts to stop giving deference to an agency interpretation of its own regulation except to the extent that interpretation is persuasive?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress in 2008 amended the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, expanding some key sections and admonishing courts to construe the Act broadly in favor of coverage. EEOC issued regulations that in places expanded the amendments’ reach even further, and also purported to tell courts how to construe and apply the law. In this ADA action, the district court granted summary judgment because plaintiffs alleged knee condition, of which she offered no supporting medical evidence, was not a physical impairment that, by plaintiffs own testimony, substantially limited a major life activity. Plaintiff appealed, and EEOC in an amicus curiae brief offered guidance that relied on its expanded regulations and broadened them still further, declaring categorically that ADA plaintiffs need not provide any “medical evidence” of their substantially limiting condition. The appellate court agreed and reversed. 1. Should this Court overrule Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 US. 410 (1945) and direct federal courts to stop giving deference to an agency interpretation of its own regulation except to the extent that interpretation is persuasive? 2. Should this Court overrule Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and direct courts to stop giving deference to agency regulations interpreting statutes except to the extent the regulations are persuasive? i