[autoexec]

> Under Chevron the executive agencies decided that without check.

That isn't even close to being the truth. Under Chevron congress was always free to pass statutes as detailed as they want to avoid the kind of ambiguities that would even apply to Chevron in the first place, and judges have always had the oversight to ensure that an agency's interpretation was a "permissible construction of the statute".

Those are two literal checks. I have no idea where you ever got the idea that executive agencies were "without check" but that is just plainly wrong.

"First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."