While I agree with Richard Epstein and Mario Loyola that Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) was "disastrously wrong" ("The Supreme Court's Chance to Rein In the Regulatory State," op-ed Dec. 8), the court's current inclination to depart from that decision may contribute to the perception that the court is too political. Chevron was decided two-thirds of the way through a 24-year period that reversed Democratic electoral dominance at the presidential level, but not at the congressional level. The ruling paved the way for right-leaning Reagan administrators to "revise" the interpretation of longstanding statutes, most enacted by Democratic-controlled Congresses, without securing statutory change. In 1992, however, the Republican "lock" on the Electoral College was broken, and in 1994, the Democratic "lock" on Congress was destroyed as well. Since then, Democrats have been ascendant in presidential elections, while Republicans have held a stronger hand in Congress. Hence the newfound hostility of conservative jurists to Chevron may be seen not as a break from the 1980s, but a continuation of solicitude by conservative jurists for Republican political authority. A Republican-dominated court in 1984 adopted a doctrine favoring Republican-leaning administrations and weakening Democratic-leaning legislators; a Republican-dominated court in the 2020s now is inclined to reverse that doctrine, strengthening Republican-leaning lawmakers at the expense of Democratic-leaning administrations.