Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish · ¶66
I think the Court should interpret the “relating to” addition primarily by determining what Congress intended to accomplish with this amendment. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U. S. 229, 310–311 (2026) (Jackson, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Indeed, the Court's “fundamental task” in interpreting federal statutes is to give effect to Congress's intent. R. Katzmann, Judging Statutes 31 (2014) (Katzmann); see Pennington v. Coxe, 2 Cranch 33, 59 (1804) (opinion for the Court by Marshall, C. J.) (“It is the duty of the court to discover the intention of the legislature, and to respect that intention”). And the Court faithfully discharges this duty when it considers all reliable evidence of Congress's intent—including statutory and legislative history. See United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 775 (2023) (“Statutory history is an important part of [the]…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.