Whether the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Enterprises ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine constitutes mandatory authority for California corrections and violates due process and equal protection

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS HIGH COURT'S RECENT RULING OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE, AS ANNOUNCED IN LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO, NO. 22-251[2024], AND RELENTLESS V. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NO. 22-1219 [JUNE 28, 2024], IS MANDATORY AUTHORITY ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATIONS AND DISPOSES OF THE "HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL" STANDARD OF IN RE LAWRENCE, 44 CAL.4THT.1181 [2008]; AND, IF SO, DID THE VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ALSO ILLEGALLY DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW; REQUIRING REVERSAL1. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 5, 9, AND 14, AS A JUVENILE OFFENDER BY ILLEGALLY AND PREJUDICIALLY APPLYING THE OVERTURNED CHEVRON DOCTRINE,IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 4801[c]. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 5, 9, 14, AS AN ELDERLY OFFENDER BY ILLEGALLY AND , PREJUDICIALLY APPLYING THE OVERTURNED CHEVRON DOCTRINE,IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 3055 [c].A. B. i .