▁v . ▁Lyn ch ▁ ▁also ▁object ed ▁to ▁excess ive ▁Che v ron ▁de ference ▁to ▁ag encies : ▁ ▁Qu ite ▁literally ▁then , ▁after ▁this ▁court ▁declared ▁the ▁stat utes ' ▁meaning ▁and ▁issued ▁a ▁final ▁decision , ▁an ▁executive ▁ag ency ▁was ▁permitted ▁to ▁( and ▁did ) ▁tell ▁us ▁to ▁reverse ▁our ▁decision ▁like ▁some ▁sort ▁of ▁super ▁court ▁of ▁appe als . ▁If ▁that ▁doesn ' t ▁qual ify ▁as ▁an ▁un const itution al ▁revision ▁of ▁a ▁jud icial ▁declaration ▁of ▁the ▁law ▁by ▁a ▁political ▁branch , ▁I ▁conf ess ▁I ▁begin ▁to ▁wonder ▁whether ▁we ' ve ▁forgotten ▁what ▁might . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁Administr ative ▁Pro cedure ▁Act ▁( AP A ) ▁Congress ▁v ested ▁the ▁courts ▁with ▁the ▁power ▁to ▁" inter pret ▁... ▁stat ut ory ▁prov isions " ▁and ▁over turn ▁ag ency ▁action ▁incons istent ▁with ▁those ▁interpret ations . ▁ 5 ▁U . S . C . ▁§ ▁ 7 0 6 . ▁ ▁For ▁whatever ▁the ▁ag ency ▁may ▁be ▁doing ▁under ▁Che v ron , ▁the ▁problem ▁remains ▁that ▁courts ▁are ▁not ▁ful fill ing ▁their ▁duty ▁to ▁interpret ▁the ▁law ▁and ▁declare ▁invalid ▁ag ency ▁actions ▁incons istent ▁with ▁those ▁interpret ations ▁in ▁the ▁cases ▁and ▁controvers ies ▁that ▁come ▁before ▁them . ▁A ▁duty ▁express ly ▁assigned ▁to ▁them ▁by ▁the ▁A PA ▁and ▁one ▁often ▁likely ▁comp elled ▁by ▁the ▁Constitution ▁itself . ▁That ' s ▁a ▁problem ▁for ▁the ▁jud ici ary