Case Name Rule Test Other Topic Specific Ruling

See Zavydas, only it came out the other

Almendarez-Torres You can “reason” your way around something
Is the statute ambiguous? way. Scalia, RBG, Stevens, & Slater lost
their constitutional shit in the dissent.
Statutory Interpretation: 
The regular meaning of the
"notwithstanding clause" offered
that looks like a constitutional concern Constitutional Avoidance
1998 Does it raise a significant Constitutional issue? no grave constitutional concerns.
Grave constitutional concern (Breyer) 

An agency/the Secretary of the agency in question
Auer has the authority to issue a controlling
interpretation unless his/her interpretation is
1997 “plainly erroneous or inconsistent w/the
regulation."
Is the agency’s interpretation of it’s own
regulation?
Is the agency’s interpretation plainly erroneous
or inconsistent with the regulation itself?
Police officers don't qualify for
Agency interpretation is controlling unless
plainly erroneous/inconsistent with the
Agency Interpretation: overtime, because there was not
regulation
Deference to Agency actual practice of reducing salaries
as punishment.

Court rules that "harm" has a

broad meaning, and applies
Shows a combination of the use of beyond direct "takings."
Statutory Interpretation:
Babbit v. Sweet Home Presume each term adds independent meaning.
Ejusdem generis,
text/plain meaning, surplusage,
intent/purpose of act, whol act inference,
Textual Canons
Secretary's interpretation is thus
permitted under the
Noscitur a sociss Substantive Canons
1995 and legislative history to determine
Bringing it all together
statute.Scalia's strong dissent
meaning. employs the same canons to arrive
at the opposite outcome - a narrow
interpretation of "harm."

1. interstitial nature of the legal issue

2. expertise of the agency
Barnhart If it’s a small issue, the agency doesn’t need to go
through N&C or formal rulemaking. This is the
Is it an interstitial issue (i.e., an issue that only 3. importance of question ot the Agency Interpretation:
Agency meets Barnhart factors as
exception to "no guidance" rule of
2002 exception to Mead Step 2.
covers some small gap in the rules)? administering of the statute
4. complexity of the administration
Deference to Agency
Mead 2.
5. agency's careful consideration over time

Bob Jones U (a religious

university) does not qualify for
Bob Jones Changing circumstances can lead to a change
Has law and society changed in such a way that
a statute’s old interpretation now would not
Changing circumstances can lead to a Statutory Interpretation: tax-exempt status because they're
definition in a regulation/statute. change definition in a regulation/statute. Changed Circumstances not "charitable" because racial
1983 make sense to Congress?
discrimination is against public
policies.
Adjudication cares less about precedent than Medical residents/fellows are now
Boston Medical Center courts do in statutory interpretation.  Adjudication
N/A
Used linguiguistic, and whole act canons considered employees rather than
1999 can be and is used to change and agency’s
interpretation of a statute
as well as legislative history. students for labor/benefits
purposes.
“Elephants in mouseholes”
Brown & If you’re materially affecting an entire sector of
Would the implications the agency is claiming FDA can’t regulate the tobacco
Williamson Tobacco the economy, you need to be really specific about
be a really big deal? If so, Congress needs to industry.
it.
2000 have been explicit in the delegation of those
powers.

Chadha One-house veto is unconstitutional because it is

an exercise of legislative authority that does not
Does the recommendation/ruling in question
have the character and effect of altering legal
Legislation must go through bicameralism Control of Agencies:
The one-house legislative veto is
unconstitutional because it
1983 meet the requirements of Article I. rights?
and be presented to the President Congressional Legislative Veto
violates separation of powers.

Agency's interpretation of their own statute If you get through step 1, you’ll most EPA's interpretation of "stationary
2 Steps:
Chevron should be upheld/have controlling weight if
Congress hadn't spoken to the issue and the
(1) Has Congress spoken directly to the issue?
likely get through step 2. The importance
of Chevron is in (1)(B): it changes the
Agency Interpretation:
source" upheld because Congress
hadn't spoken to the issue and the
1984 interpretation was based on a permissible
(2) Is the agency’s view based on a permissible
construction?
default power of interpretation from the
Deference to Agency
interpretation was based on a
construction. courts to the agencies. permissible construction.

The Federal Communications

Agencies have a heightened standard of review if
Fox their new policy contradicts the facts OR if others
2009 demonstrate a serious reliance on the previous
definition.
Commission had not acted
Does the agency’s new policy contradict the Does it change ARB+CAP standard as Agency Interpretation: Deference to arbitrarily when it changed a long-
facts? stated in State Farm? Agency. standing policy and implemented
a new ban on even "fleeting
expletives" from the airwaves.

Gregory v. Ashcroft Avoid fucking with federalism if the meaning of
the potentially-overriding-state-constitution
1991 statute is ambiguous.
Just because something is within the letter of the
Holy Trinity statute doesn’t mean it’s within the
1892 spirit/intention of the statute, so use a variety of
statutory interpretation tools. 
Humphrey's Executor Congress can limit the President’s power to
remove for quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial
1935 officers. 
If Congress made the statute and there is
ambiguity in interpretation, the court will
King v. Burwell evaluate it with the lens of purposivism (Congress
as a whole/objective intent) and intentionalism
2015 (indiv. members of Congress). (It could be argued
that Scrivner’s errors are included in this
purposivism critique.)
An agency's changed interpretation cannot go
MCI beyond the scope of the statutory authority
granted to the agency by Congress (in their
1994 statute).
“Chevron Step 0,” is Mead steps 1&2, and these
Mead need to be met before moving onto Chevron. If
2001 they’re not met, the agency’s interpretation
defaults to Skidmore weight.
Meyers Congress cannot reserve for itself participatory
power in executive removal decisions.  official of an executive agency?
1926
Removal restrictions (like good cause removal
Morrison v. Olsen requirements) are allowed if they do not impede
the President’s ability to perform his
1988 constitutional duty of faithfully executing the
laws.
Did Congress explicitly alter federal-state
balance? If yes, then and only then can you
disturb a state constitution.
"A thing may be within the letter of the
Purposivism/intentionalism/ Scrivner’s errors:
“Does this interpretation make sense when
taken in context?
because not within its spirit, nor within the
“Is the agency/post quasi-legislative/quasi-
judicial (i.e. made by Congress)?"
Did Congress have an objective intent in
passing this statute? Does the interpretation
align with that intent?
Was the statutory authority delegated by
Congress? Did Congress speak to it at all?
Mead 1: Has Congress delegated
(1) Has the agency been delegated lawmaking
authority?
lawmaking authority to the agency with
(2) did the agency act through Notice &
Comment or formal rulemaking?
Mead 2: Did the agency act in the exercise
Rulemaking/Formal Ajudication)
Is the person in danger of being removed an
“Does this impede the president from
performing his constitutional duties?"
The ADEA case where the judges were
fired b/c of age, but arguably fit into an
exception of the Missouri Constitution, so Clear Statement Rule: congress should
they stayed fired.
statute and yet not within the statute,
intention of its makers."
Whether an agency performs quasi-
legislative or quasi-judicial functions.
"Congress made the guaranteed issue and
community rating requirements applicable
in every State in the Nation. But those
requirements only work when combined
with the coverage requirement and tax
credits. So it stands to reason that Congress
meant for those provisions to apply in
every State as well."
Step 0 to Chevron
regard to the power exercised?
of its lawmaking powers?(N+C
Postmast removed by prez, sued for
backpay, lost.
The President has the exclusive authority
to remove executive branch officials; this
contrasts with Humprey's "quasi-
judicial/legislative" ruling.
This was post-Watergate. Good cause
removal protections still valid after
Morrison. 
Balance of powers is key to determining
constitutionality."Present considered view"
- does this statute/action/interpretation
impermissably interfere with the
President's ability to impose executive
power.Different test from the "purely
executive" tests of Meyers and
Humphreys.
Statutory Interpretation: Substantive
Canons
Federal Law Pre-emption
Missouri's mandatory retirement
requirement for judges does not
clearly show they intended to pre-empt
state laws. Focus on the ability for
states to govern themselves.
Statutory Interpretation:
Legislative Intent
Control of Agencies:
Executive Removal
Statutory Interpretation
Legislative Intent
Agency Interpretation:
Deference to Agency
Agency Interpretation:
Deference to Agency
Control of Agencies:
Executive Removal
Control of Agencies:
Executive Removal
violate the ADEA.
A minister is not a laborer under
the Alien Contract Labor Law.
FTC's "good cause" removal
provision is valid; President
cannot remove quasi-legislative or
quasi-judicial officials except
through means approved by
Congress.
Subsidies apply to both state-
created and federally-created
exchanges, because "created by a
state" is superfluous when read in
the context of the whole act.
FCC's relaxed requirements for
non-dominant telephone carriers
exceeded the scope of what their
statute could carry, and so is
disallowed.
Customs agency issues 10K-15K
tarriff classification letters (TCLs)
every year; they aren't issuing
them with lawmaking pretense.
Customs office doesn't have the
authority to issue laws with
respect to TCLs. Fails both Mead
1 + 2.
Consitutuion is silent on dismissal
of Postmaster Generals (but not
on their appointment, which
requires Senate approval).
President has exclusive power to
remove his staff - extension of the
President's executive authority.
The Independent Counsel Act is
constitutional, as it does not
increase the power of the judiciary
or the legislative branches at the
expense of the executive.
 DOL’s interpretive rule that
Mortgage Bank v. Perez Interpretive rules (and others that don’t carry the
force of law) need not meet formal requirements
Is this change an amendment or merely an APA sets the MAXIMUM judicially-
mortgage-loan officers were not
exempt from overtime wages,
interpretation? required procedural standards for agencies.
2015 of the APA like amendments do. contrary to the previous
interpretive rule, was valid.

"Carries a firearm" has 2

Court uses a number of textual canons in
combination with legislative purpose and
Muscarello Look to the ordinary rather than technical Is the technical meaning appropriate for this
history to determine "carries" means
"convey." Ignores Rule of Lenity, because
Statutory Interpretation:
meaning for interpretation of a criminal statute context? If not, use ordinary meaning.
1998 there is no "grievous ambiguity" -
arguable. Shows possibility of selection
bias in their sources.
permissable meanings. "On
person" or a broader meaning, that
extents to in a car. Court looks for
the ordinary meaning of "carries"
as the audience of the criminial
Textual Canons
statute is the public. Use a number
of tools (dictionaries, etymology,
literature, modern press usage,
etc) to determine that it extends to
in a car.

"Carries a firearm" has 2

“Carries.” Gave the finger to the rule of
permissable meanings. "On
lenity.
person" or a broader meaning, that
extents to in a car. Court looks for
Court uses a number of textual canons in
Muscarello If the “ordinary meaning” carries forward the
Does the ordinary meaning carry forward the
statutory purpose better than
combination with legislative purpose and Statutory Interpretation:
the ordinary meaning of "carries"
as the audience of the criminial
1998 statutory purpose, use that.
Congresalternatives?
history to determine "carries" means
"convey." Ignores Rule of Lenity, because
Textual Canons
statute is the public. Use a number
of tools (dictionaries, etymology,
there is no "grievous ambiguity" -
literature, modern press usage,
arguable. Shows possibility of selection
etc) to determine that it extends to
bias in their sources.
in a car.

Nix v. Hedden Use the ordinary meaning if the statute is meant What meaning would the statute’s intended
The tomato/tomahto case.
Tomato is legally a vegetable,
even though it’s scientifically a
1893 for a general public audience. audience use?
fruit.

Secretary authorized funds to

To avoid arbitrariness, should at least show
Overton Park some reasons behind decision; even during
informal adjudication.
build I-40 through Overton Park
in Mephis, TN. He gave no
Agency Interpretation:
reasons for making this political
Deference to Agency
decision. Court ruled that he
Arbitrary and Capricious
needed to show a "whole record"
on the reaons for why he chose to
build through the park.

The dual-for-cause limitations of

2-layers of remobal protection is the removal of members of the
unconsitutional because it impedes the PCAOB contravene the
PCAOB Multi-level removal limitation runs contrary to
Is there a good clause limitation on employees
who are themselve under someone subject to a
President's ability to execute laws. The
court applies Morrison's reasoning,
Control of Agencies:
Constitution's separation of
powers, but the unconstitutional
2010 Article II’s vesting clause.
good clause removal clause? although they could have applied
Executive Removal
limitations are severable from the
Humprey's (quasi-legislative/quasi- remainder of the statute. The
judicial). Board's appointment is consistent
with the Appointments clause.

"Proceeds" in a money laudering

Statutory Interpretation: statute means "profits" and does
Santos If the statute is ambiguous and it could just as
easily mean one thing as another, rule for the ∆
Could the statute just as easily mean one thing
If statute is ambiguous, invoke the Rule of
Lenity (criminal laws; narrow
Textual Canons not include "receipts," so Santos is
with more grace as another? Ordinary v. Technical Meaning not guilty of money laundering.
2008 under the rule of lenity. interpretation).
Rule of Lenity The statute is ambiguous, so the
court invokes the Rule of Lenity.
 Administrator's bulletin
determines that a worker's ability
to get paid depends on their
Skidmore Test
freedom to do personal activities
(Factors)
(like eat and sleep). Court
Skidmore Agency interpretation of a statute has the power
1. The thoroughness of the agency's
investigation
Agency Interpretation determines this is valid +
1944 to persuade, but not the power to control.
2. The validity of its reasoning
Deference to Agency firefighters should be paid for
their "hall time" - when on call -
3. The conistency of its interpretation over time
because nothing in the Fair Labor
4. Other persuasive powers of the agency
Standards Act precludes waiting
time from also being working
time.

An agency’s “fair and considered

judgement” can be demonstrated by:
Agency’s interpretation doesn’t receive deference DOL’s interpretation in the
SmithKline if plainly erroneous, inconsistent with the
Is the agency’s interpretation plainly erroneous,
inconsistent with the regulation, or not reflect 1. Conflicting with prior interpretation
amicus brief is invalid because it
2012 regulation, or doesn’t reflect the agency’s fair and
considered judgement.
the agency’s fair and considered judgement? 2. Convenient litigating position
conflicts with the prior
interpretation.
3. Post hoc rationalization to defend
previous decision

NTSA recission was arbitrary and

capricious; the agency didn't
consider other alternatives ("not
State Farm If the regulation or rescission of the regulation is
arbitrary & capricious, it’s subject to court “Arbitrary & Capricious"
Apply The Chenery Rule: “the court can’t
draw inferences on the agency’s
Agency Interpretation: Deference to one sentence… discussed AB
Agency options"), and the agency was too
1983 review. Reasoning must be rational. reasoning.” 
quick to dismiss safety benefits of
auto. Failed both procedural and
substantive hard looks.

Atomic Energy Commission’s

This restriction on the courts is in part
Courts cannot mandate agency procedural rulemaking procedures of
Vermont Yankee requirements beyond those in the APA, though it Did the agency meet the APA’s requirements of
because if courts could choose the “best”
procedures, agencies would be uncertain,
informal rulemaking and
1978 can require agencies to meet the APA if they fall
short.
rulemaking?
so would always choose formal
additional procedures (that
together met the requirements of
adjudication.
the APA) were valid.

Clear Air Act properly delegated

Interpret a statute narrowly to infer a more
Whitman specific meaning without giving an agency
overly board authority.
Control of Agencies
Congressional
Delagation of Authority
legislative power to the EPA;
there's an intelligible principle in
"requisite" safety standards -
meaning sufficient but not more
than necessary, which sets
constraints on the agency.

Whether the AG can detain a removable

alien indefinitely: it would probs be a
violation of due process, so no.” Immigration law is ambiguous
Statutory Interpretation ("may be detained" doesn't
Zadvydas If there’s 2 ways to construe a statute and one is
unconstitutional or raises a serious
Could one of the interpretations raise a grave
There is no clear textual limitation on how
long the AG can detain an individual, but
Textual Canons
Ordinary v. Technical Meaning
indicate indefinite detention) and
applies constitutional avoidance
2001 constitutionality question, rule for the other one. 
constitutional question?
the court believes the constitutional issue Substantive Canons doctrine to limit attorney general's
to be "grave" enough to interpret the Constitutional Avoidance power (he cannot detain
statute narrowly. Also, Congress' intent individuals indefinitely).
wasn't clear; if it had been, the court
would've given effect to that.