138 S.Ct. 1052
SCOTUS2018Background
- Garco Construction had an Army Corps contract to build housing at Malmstrom AFB and agreed to follow base access policies.
- The base’s written policy referenced only a “wants and warrants” check, but the base later issued a “clarification” requiring broader background checks and excluding many with criminal histories.
- The base denied access to certain subcontractor employees, interfering with Garco’s performance.
- Garco sought an equitable adjustment for the changed access requirements; the contracting officer denied relief and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied Garco’s appeal.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, applying Auer deference to uphold the base’s interpretation despite textual doubts about “wants and warrants.”
- Garco petitioned for certiorari asking whether Seminole Rock/Auer deference should be overruled; the Court denied certiorari and Justice Thomas dissented from that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation (Seminole Rock/Auer) | Seminole Rock/Auer are incorrect and should be overruled; agencies shouldn’t receive controlling weight for their own unclear rules | Agency interpretations warrant deference; bases may clarify and apply their policies | Certiorari denied; lower-court application of Auer was not reviewed (dissent would have granted review to reconsider Auer) |
| Whether the base’s “clarification” lawfully expanded “wants and warrants” to bar individuals with criminal histories | The phrase means only literal wants and warrants; the base’s retroactive expansion was improper and altered contract obligations | The base’s interpretation was reasonable and should be sustained under Auer deference | Federal Circuit upheld base’s interpretation; Supreme Court denied review of that application |
| Whether deference to military expertise justifies Seminole Rock application in this context | Military policy expertise does not extend to legal interpretation of regulatory text | The military’s interpretations of base-access rules are entitled to deference for security and policy reasons | Dissent: military expertise is irrelevant to legal text interpretation; majority denied certiorari so no ruling on the point |
| Whether Seminole Rock deference permits agencies to change regulatory meaning retroactively, harming notice and predictability | Seminole Rock allows agencies to alter meaning and accumulate power, violating separation of powers and notice principles | Seminole Rock is a longstanding doctrine that guides interpretation and promotes uniformity | Dissent: doctrine is constitutionally suspect and should be reconsidered; Court declined to revisit it now |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretations of their own regulations receive controlling weight when not plainly erroneous)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (established deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations)
- Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (discussed limits of agency-interpretation deference)
- Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (military matters receive deference in policy contexts)
- Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (criticized retroactive or arbitrary agency reinterpretations)