Knowledge (XXG)

Kisor v. Wilkie

Source 📝

462:(VA). On review, the VA disagreed he had PTSD and denied him disability benefits. Kisor appealed that decision in 2006, this time with additional documentation that was not available in 1982, including his service record. The VA granted benefits with this information, but with a start date of 2006 rather than 1982. The VA interpreted its own regulations that the new documents presented were not "relevant" to his first request in 1982, despite Kisor stating that the VA affirmed his PTSD from his combat record forms. Both the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the 31: 553:, namely, the court's belief of implicit Congressional intent. The court inferred that the agency itself can best state the regulation's authorial intent, has the expertise to make what's essentially a policy decision, and can promote uniformity. Justice Kagan further stated that while the decision upholds the 575:
The Court's unanimous ruling on the judgment of the specific matter of Kisor's case with the VA found that the Federal Circuit did not use all the tools it had at hand to properly analyze the interpretation of the VA's regulations, thus vacating the prior decision and remanding it for review in light
346:
deference is used to defer to an executive agency's interpretation of the "construction of the statute which it administers", as long as Congress has not passed any legislation to address the statute, and the interpretation is a "permissible construction" of the statute. This was further established
323:
on precedent, but did reverse and remand the veteran's case to be reheard with stricter adherence to the principles of whether the Auer deference did apply in the veteran's case. However, the Court did state that there are times when the Auer deference may be inappropriate, and outlined rules for
506:
contributed towards the administrative state; they also expressed concern that such agencies, and not the judiciary, are typically the only appropriate entities with expert knowledge in the agency's field to make appropriate interpretations, citing the example of a complex chemical requirement
501:
deference. The Supreme Court granted the petition on the first question only, with oral arguments heard on March 27, 2019. During oral arguments, while the Court acknowledged the shortcomings of allowing agencies to interpret their own policies without reasonable public input; and how
308:, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference. 1528: 1403: 1663: 1536: 565:; "the agency's construction of its rule must still be reasonable"; the rule must be an authoritative statement by superior officials of the agency; it must implicate agency expertise; and it cannot create unfair surprise. 470:
gave the VA the ability to define the meaning of "relevant" in this regulation, and putting the onus on Kisor to demonstrate it was not a valid interpretation. Kisor's petition for the Federal Circuit to rehear the case
1485: 1700: 1544: 632: 334: 1355: 1339: 568:
Chief justice Roberts joined only the portion of the majority opinion that limited the application of Auer. He did not join the parts of the opinion that stated the justifications for
463: 685: 662: 637: 615: 585: 82: 549:, writing for the majority, issued an opinion by herself and the other liberal justices, joined partly by Chief Justice Roberts. Kagan began by reiterating the justification of 431: 357:
deference would also apply to interpretations of regulations established by the agency, as long as the interpretation was not inconsistent with the regulation. The decision of
1647: 395:, later stated his regret for writing that decision, calling it "one of the worst opinions in the history of this country," and questioned it in a concurring opinion in 1623: 1002: 810: 1387: 1176: 380:, later made Dean of Harvard Law School, have expressed concern that this ruling gives executive agencies too much power, able to draw judicial power in a growing 294:
case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the
1710: 1323: 1631: 1655: 528:
The Court issued its decision on June 26, 2019, reversing and remanding the case back to the Federal Circuit Court. The ruling specifically did not overrule
497:(1945) should be overturned, and second, whether the canon of interpretation requiring courts to construe interpretive ambiguity in favor of veterans trumps 459: 295: 542:, though some dissents-in-part from Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh indicated they would have ruled in favor of overturning those decisions. 1477: 866: 1695: 1453: 1379: 1238: 508: 1568: 1101: 1715: 1705: 1690: 1639: 779: 1347: 1030: 557:
deference, "we reinforce its limits." Kagan wrote that the Auer deference is "sometimes appropriate and sometimes not," and stated that the
1600: 1169: 384:. Some have found agencies more likely to write vague regulations so that they can be interpreted as needed in future legal challenges. 291: 35: 706: 749: 1185: 1520: 1445: 1244: 1162: 910: 1209: 838: 561:
deference can only be considered when "a regulation is genuinely ambiguous"; the court has exhausted traditional tools of
455: 1560: 1419: 1232: 1576: 1504: 1268: 1085: 1512: 1282: 1250: 1031:"Supreme Court refuses to overturn 'Auer deference,' precedent that strengthens the power of government regulators" 519:
half-jokingly expressed concern that a poor decision in this case could be the "greatest judicial power grab since
974: 1003:"Supreme Court won't strip federal agencies of power to interpret regulations, a top priority of conservatives" 562: 381: 271:
Gorsuch (in judgment), joined by Thomas; Kavanaugh (Parts I, II, III, IV, and V); Alito (Parts I, II, and III)
511:. The Justices expressed concern with fractured interpretation of regulations within other agencies should 1312: 1214: 451: 66: 1371: 689: 666: 641: 619: 77: 1062: 1592: 1411: 1071: 944: 1395: 871: 194: 979: 521: 486: 1461: 1363: 1146: 1275: 55: 1552: 1288: 1224: 784: 657: 416: 400: 377: 349: 304: 230: 210: 186: 1128: 611: 911:
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re
1469: 1305: 843: 692: 669: 644: 516: 420: 388: 299: 198: 1684: 538: 247:
Kagan (Parts I, II–B, III–B, and IV), joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
1199: 1154: 931: 898: 427: 412: 408: 222: 206: 178: 130: 113: 546: 447: 426:
reconsideration in an appropriate case". Observers also identified that Justice
298:
due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "
218: 1204: 134: 1007: 815: 707:"Between Seminole Rock and a Hard Place: A New Approach to Agency Deference" 536:, as Kisor's case lacked the proper motivation for doing so and to overcome 407:(Docket 15–861) that members of the Court, including himself, Chief Justice 342:
deference, a doctrine frequently applied in federal courts. In essence, the
138: 117: 89: 811:"Supreme Court appears wary of taking on federal agencies over regulations" 839:"Kavanaugh's Court begins its inevitable power grab with Kisor v. Wilkie" 489:
to the Supreme Court in April 2018, asking two questions. First, whether
1137: 780:"The Boring Supreme Court Case That Could Help Make America Great Again" 403:
had written in his dissenting opinion on the denial of the petition for
473: 122: 867:"Supreme Court Tees Up Major Challenge to Power of Federal Regulators" 159:, but courts must use all interpretive powers it has to affirm if the 975:"Limiting Agency Power, a Goal of the Right, Gets Supreme Court Test" 458:(PTSD) from his service, Kisor sought disability benefits from the 255:
Kagan (Parts II–A and III–A), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
750:"Symposium: In "Gundy II," Auer survives by a vote of 4.6 to 4.4" 1035: 127: 110: 1158: 633:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
335:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
30: 315:
overturned. The Court issued its decision in June 2019 that
1356:
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization
434:, authored decisions that called for a re-evaluation of 365:, but most of the federal courts have adopted the term 319:
lacked sufficient motivation and rationale to overturn
1701:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
464:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
586:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 588
576:
of the limitations set forth for the Auer deference.
432:
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1615: 1496: 1437: 1430: 1331: 1322: 1297: 1260: 1223: 1192: 1124:, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is available from: 804: 802: 275: 267: 259: 251: 243: 238: 167: 145: 102: 97: 72: 62: 49: 42: 23: 1084:Larkin, Paul J.; Slattery, Elizabeth H. (2019). 968: 966: 1061:Hickman, Kristin E.; Thomson, Mark R. (2019). 1170: 8: 460:United States Department of Veterans Affairs 296:United States Department of Veterans Affairs 466:affirmed the VA's decision, affirming that 1454:Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe 1434: 1380:Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 1328: 1177: 1163: 1155: 1102:Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 509:United States Food and Drug Administration 477:was denied, with three judges dissenting. 397:Talk America v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co 20: 603: 601: 454:. In 1982, stating that he had developed 446:James Kisor is a veteran Marine from the 376:, many legal commentators, starting with 151:There is no sufficient cause to overturn 290:, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a 279:Kavanaugh (in judgment), joined by Alito 1640:Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital 597: 682:Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. 495:Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. 363:Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. 1711:United States administrative case law 391:, who wrote the majority opinion for 18:2019 United States Supreme Court case 7: 1601:Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 837:Millhiser, Ian (December 12, 2018). 773: 771: 744: 742: 740: 738: 736: 734: 732: 778:French, David (December 11, 2018). 36:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 1696:United States Supreme Court cases 1029:Higgens, Tucker (June 26, 2019). 865:Mauro, Tony (December 10, 2018). 405:United Student Aid Funds v. Bible 324:lower courts to use as a metric. 1186:United States administrative law 809:Wolf, Richard (March 27, 2019). 450:, and had been a participant in 361:had been previously mirrored in 338:introduced what is known as the 29: 1716:United States veterans case law 1001:Wolf, Richard (June 26, 2019). 973:Liptak, Adam (March 27, 2019). 945:"Court releases March calendar" 302:" established in the 1997 case 1706:Post-traumatic stress disorder 1691:2019 in United States case law 1521:Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB 1446:Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner 1245:Government in the Sunshine Act 705:Leske, Kevin (November 2013). 493:, as well as the related case 1: 572:and declined to overrule it. 456:posttraumatic stress disorder 423:, had "repeatedly called for 1561:Christensen v. Harris County 1420:Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. 1233:Administrative Procedure Act 1147:Supreme Court (slip opinion) 1577:United States v. Mead Corp. 1513:Skidmore v. Swift & Co. 1505:NLRB v. Hearst Publications 1269:Code of Federal Regulations 485:Kisor filed a petition for 353:in 1997, which stated that 1732: 1283:Emergency Federal Register 1251:Regulatory Flexibility Act 1239:Freedom of Information Act 1138:Oyez (oral argument audio) 934: (Fed. Cir. 2018). 901: (Fed. Cir. 2017). 430:, while he served on the 172: 163:deference is appropriate. 150: 28: 311:The case sought to have 1324:Supreme Court decisions 1063:"The Chevronization of 1404:Vermont Yankee v. NRDC 1388:United States v. FECRC 1313:Foreign Affairs Manual 1215:Nondelegation doctrine 711:Connecticut Law Review 563:statutory construction 515:be overruled. Justice 507:established under the 452:Operation Harvest Moon 1372:Richardson v. Perales 932:880 F.3d 1378 899:869 F.3d 1360 88:139 S. Ct. 2400; 204 45:Decided June 26, 2019 43:Argued March 27, 2019 1593:West Virginia v. EPA 1412:Califano v. Yamasaki 1298:Policies and manuals 1072:Minnesota Law Review 382:administrative state 372:Since the ruling on 1396:Mathews v. Eldridge 1225:Federal legislation 872:National Law Review 195:Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1529:MVMA v. State Farm 1486:Corner Post v. FRB 1348:Londoner v. Denver 1340:CMSPR v. Minnesota 980:The New York Times 951:. January 25, 2019 522:Marbury v. Madison 487:writ of certiorari 183:Associate Justices 133:(Fed. Cir. 2018); 54:James L. Kisor v. 1678: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1611: 1610: 1462:Heckler v. Chaney 1364:Goldberg v. Kelly 1086:"The World After 283: 282: 263:Roberts (in part) 120:2017); rehearing 1723: 1435: 1329: 1276:Federal Register 1179: 1172: 1165: 1156: 1151: 1145: 1142: 1136: 1133: 1127: 1110: 1098: 1080: 1048: 1047: 1045: 1043: 1026: 1020: 1019: 1017: 1015: 998: 992: 991: 989: 987: 970: 961: 960: 958: 956: 941: 935: 929: 927:Kisor v. Shulkin 923: 917: 908: 902: 896: 894:Kisor v. Shulkin 890: 884: 883: 881: 879: 862: 856: 855: 853: 851: 834: 828: 827: 825: 823: 806: 797: 796: 794: 792: 775: 766: 765: 763: 761: 746: 727: 726: 724: 722: 702: 696: 679: 673: 654: 648: 629: 623: 605: 328:Legal background 292:US Supreme Court 168:Court membership 107:Kisor v. Shulkin 56:Robert L. Wilkie 33: 32: 21: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1670: 1664:NCTA v. Brand X 1607: 1585:Kisor v. Wilkie 1553:Auer v. Robbins 1545:Chevron v. NRDC 1492: 1431:Judicial Review 1426: 1318: 1293: 1289:Regulations.gov 1256: 1219: 1188: 1183: 1149: 1143: 1140: 1134: 1131: 1125: 1122:Kisor v. Wilkie 1117: 1096: 1083: 1060: 1057: 1055:Further reading 1052: 1051: 1041: 1039: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1013: 1011: 1000: 999: 995: 985: 983: 972: 971: 964: 954: 952: 943: 942: 938: 925: 924: 920: 913:Auer v. Robbins 909: 905: 892: 891: 887: 877: 875: 864: 863: 859: 849: 847: 836: 835: 831: 821: 819: 808: 807: 800: 790: 788: 785:National Review 777: 776: 769: 759: 757: 756:. June 27, 2019 748: 747: 730: 720: 718: 704: 703: 699: 680: 676: 658:Auer v. Robbins 655: 651: 630: 626: 622:___ (2019). 608:Kisor v. Wilkie 606: 599: 594: 582: 483: 444: 442:Case background 417:Anthony Kennedy 401:Clarence Thomas 350:Auer v. Robbins 330: 305:Auer v. Robbins 287:Kisor v. Wilkie 231:Brett Kavanaugh 221: 211:Sonia Sotomayor 209: 197: 187:Clarence Thomas 137:. granted, 202 93: 44: 38: 24:Kisor v. Wilkie 19: 12: 11: 5: 1729: 1727: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1693: 1683: 1682: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1668: 1660: 1656:Whitman v. ATA 1652: 1644: 1636: 1628: 1619: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1606: 1605: 1597: 1589: 1581: 1573: 1565: 1557: 1549: 1541: 1533: 1525: 1517: 1509: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1491: 1490: 1482: 1478:Norton v. SUWA 1474: 1470:Webster v. Doe 1466: 1458: 1450: 1441: 1439: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1425: 1424: 1416: 1408: 1400: 1392: 1384: 1376: 1368: 1360: 1352: 1344: 1335: 1333: 1326: 1320: 1319: 1317: 1316: 1309: 1306:Justice Manual 1301: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1279: 1272: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1255: 1254: 1248: 1242: 1236: 1229: 1227: 1221: 1220: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1202: 1196: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1184: 1182: 1181: 1174: 1167: 1159: 1153: 1152: 1116: 1115:External links 1113: 1112: 1111: 1081: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1021: 993: 962: 936: 918: 903: 885: 857: 844:Think Progress 829: 798: 767: 728: 697: 674: 649: 624: 596: 595: 593: 590: 589: 588: 581: 578: 517:Stephen Breyer 482: 479: 443: 440: 421:Antonin Scalia 389:Antonin Scalia 332:The 1984 case 329: 326: 300:Auer deference 281: 280: 277: 273: 272: 269: 265: 264: 261: 257: 256: 253: 249: 248: 245: 241: 240: 236: 235: 234: 233: 199:Stephen Breyer 184: 181: 176: 170: 169: 165: 164: 148: 147: 143: 142: 104: 100: 99: 95: 94: 87: 74: 70: 69: 64: 60: 59: 51: 50:Full case name 47: 46: 40: 39: 34: 26: 25: 17: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1728: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1648:Gade v. NSWMA 1645: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1632:CFTC v. Schor 1629: 1626: 1625: 1624:INS v. Chadha 1621: 1620: 1618: 1616:Agency Action 1614: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1440: 1438:Reviewability 1436: 1433: 1429: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1327: 1325: 1321: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1290: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1271: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1263: 1259: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1228: 1226: 1222: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1180: 1175: 1173: 1168: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1148: 1139: 1130: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1109:(2): 625–648. 1108: 1104: 1103: 1095: 1093: 1089: 1088:Seminole Rock 1082: 1079:(2): 103–113. 1078: 1074: 1073: 1068: 1066: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1025: 1022: 1010: 1009: 1004: 997: 994: 982: 981: 976: 969: 967: 963: 950: 946: 940: 937: 933: 928: 922: 919: 915: 914: 907: 904: 900: 895: 889: 886: 874: 873: 868: 861: 858: 846: 845: 840: 833: 830: 818: 817: 812: 805: 803: 799: 787: 786: 781: 774: 772: 768: 755: 751: 745: 743: 741: 739: 737: 735: 733: 729: 716: 712: 708: 701: 698: 694: 691: 687: 683: 678: 675: 671: 668: 664: 660: 659: 653: 650: 646: 643: 639: 635: 634: 628: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 604: 602: 598: 591: 587: 584: 583: 579: 577: 573: 571: 566: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 543: 541: 540: 539:stare decisis 535: 534:Seminole Rock 531: 526: 524: 523: 518: 514: 510: 505: 500: 496: 492: 488: 481:Supreme Court 480: 478: 476: 475: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 441: 439: 437: 433: 429: 425: 422: 418: 414: 411:and Justices 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 385: 383: 379: 375: 370: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351: 345: 341: 337: 336: 327: 325: 322: 318: 314: 309: 307: 306: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 239:Case opinions 237: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 185: 182: 180: 177: 175:Chief Justice 174: 173: 171: 166: 162: 158: 154: 149: 144: 140: 136: 132: 129: 125: 124: 119: 115: 112: 108: 105: 101: 96: 91: 85: 84: 79: 75: 71: 68: 65: 61: 58: 57: 52: 48: 41: 37: 27: 22: 16: 1662: 1654: 1646: 1638: 1630: 1622: 1599: 1591: 1584: 1583: 1575: 1567: 1559: 1551: 1543: 1537:BGLC v. NRDC 1535: 1527: 1519: 1511: 1503: 1484: 1476: 1468: 1460: 1452: 1444: 1418: 1410: 1402: 1394: 1386: 1378: 1370: 1362: 1354: 1346: 1338: 1311: 1304: 1281: 1274: 1267: 1200:Adjudication 1121: 1106: 1100: 1091: 1087: 1076: 1070: 1064: 1040:. Retrieved 1034: 1024: 1012:. Retrieved 1006: 996: 984:. Retrieved 978: 955:February 28, 953:. Retrieved 948: 939: 926: 921: 912: 906: 893: 888: 878:December 13, 876:. Retrieved 870: 860: 850:December 13, 848:. Retrieved 842: 832: 820:. Retrieved 814: 791:December 13, 789:. Retrieved 783: 758:. Retrieved 753: 721:December 13, 719:. Retrieved 717:(1): 227–285 714: 710: 700: 695: (1945). 681: 677: 672: (1997). 656: 652: 647: (1984). 631: 627: 607: 574: 569: 567: 558: 554: 550: 544: 537: 533: 529: 527: 520: 512: 503: 498: 494: 490: 484: 472: 467: 445: 435: 428:Neil Gorsuch 424: 413:Samuel Alito 409:John Roberts 404: 396: 392: 386: 378:John Manning 373: 371: 366: 362: 358: 354: 348: 343: 339: 333: 331: 320: 316: 312: 310: 303: 286: 285: 284: 226: 223:Neil Gorsuch 214: 207:Samuel Alito 202: 190: 179:John Roberts 160: 156: 152: 126:denied, 880 121: 106: 98:Case history 81: 53: 15: 1569:FDA v. BWTC 1332:Due Process 1261:Regulations 916:(June 2018) 547:Elena Kagan 448:Vietnam War 369:deference. 276:Concurrence 268:Concurrence 260:Concurrence 219:Elena Kagan 141:491 (2018). 1685:Categories 1205:Rulemaking 949:SCOTUSblog 760:August 11, 754:SCOTUSblog 610:, No. 592:References 399:. Justice 63:Docket no. 1008:USA Today 986:March 27, 822:March 27, 816:USA Today 252:Plurality 139:L. Ed. 2d 118:Fed. Cir. 90:L. Ed. 2d 73:Citations 1497:Standard 1193:Concepts 1120:Text of 1042:June 26, 1014:June 26, 580:See also 545:Justice 387:Justice 244:Majority 474:en banc 355:Chevron 344:Chevron 340:Chevron 146:Holding 123:en banc 1667:(2005) 1659:(2001) 1651:(1992) 1643:(1988) 1635:(1986) 1627:(1983) 1604:(2024) 1596:(2022) 1588:(2019) 1580:(2001) 1572:(2000) 1564:(2000) 1556:(1997) 1548:(1984) 1540:(1983) 1532:(1983) 1524:(1951) 1516:(1944) 1508:(1944) 1489:(2024) 1481:(2004) 1473:(1988) 1465:(1985) 1457:(1971) 1449:(1967) 1423:(1982) 1415:(1979) 1407:(1978) 1399:(1976) 1391:(1973) 1383:(1972) 1375:(1971) 1367:(1970) 1359:(1915) 1351:(1908) 1343:(1890) 1253:(1980) 1247:(1976) 1241:(1966) 1235:(1946) 1210:Notice 1150:  1144:  1141:  1135:  1132:  1129:Justia 1126:  930:, 897:, 684:, 661:, 636:, 614:, 229: 227:· 225:  217: 215:· 213:  205: 203:· 201:  193: 191:· 189:  157:Bowles 109:, 869 1097:(PDF) 688: 665: 640: 618: 612:18-15 317:Kisor 103:Prior 67:18-15 1092:Auer 1090:and 1065:Auer 1044:2019 1036:CNBC 1016:2019 988:2019 957:2019 880:2018 852:2018 824:2019 793:2018 762:2020 723:2018 690:U.S. 667:U.S. 642:U.S. 620:U.S. 570:Auer 559:Auer 555:Auer 551:Auer 530:Auer 513:Auer 504:Auer 499:Auer 491:Auer 468:Auer 436:Auer 419:and 393:Auer 374:Auer 367:Auer 359:Auer 321:Auer 313:Auer 161:Auer 153:Auer 135:cert 131:1378 128:F.3d 114:1360 111:F.3d 83:more 78:U.S. 76:588 1077:103 693:410 686:325 670:452 663:519 645:837 638:467 616:588 532:or 525:". 347:in 155:or 92:841 1687:: 1107:42 1105:. 1099:. 1075:. 1069:. 1033:. 1005:. 977:. 965:^ 947:. 869:. 841:. 813:. 801:^ 782:. 770:^ 752:. 731:^ 715:46 713:. 709:. 600:^ 438:. 415:, 1178:e 1171:t 1164:v 1094:" 1067:" 1046:. 1018:. 990:. 959:. 882:. 854:. 826:. 795:. 764:. 725:. 116:( 86:) 80:(

Index

Supreme Court of the United States
Robert L. Wilkie
18-15
U.S.
more
L. Ed. 2d
F.3d
1360
Fed. Cir.
en banc
F.3d
1378
cert
L. Ed. 2d
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
US Supreme Court
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Auer deference
Auer v. Robbins
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Auer v. Robbins
John Manning

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.