578 U.S. 989
SCOTUS2016Background
- Petition: United Student Aid Funds, Inc. sought review of a Seventh Circuit decision interpreting Department of Education regulations; the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Central procedural fact: The Seventh Circuit deferred to the Department’s interpretation after the Department filed an amicus brief at the court’s invitation.
- Dissent: Justice Thomas filed a dissent from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Court should revisit and overrule Seminole Rock/Auer deference.
- Core concern: The dissent contends Auer/Seminole Rock permits agencies to control regulatory interpretation, undermining judicial role and notice/predictability in rulemaking.
- Example urged for review: Justice Thomas and other justices have repeatedly signaled that Auer deference is ripe for reconsideration; this case exemplifies perceived abuses where agencies announce novel interpretations in litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation (Auer/Seminole Rock deference) | Urges courts to reject Auer; agencies should not receive deference that transfers interpretive power from courts to agencies | Supports continued deference to agency interpretations of their regulations | Certiorari denied; Supreme Court did not overrule Auer/Seminole Rock; Justice Thomas dissented urging reconsideration |
| Whether deference is appropriate when agency advances interpretation for first time in litigation | Argues deference permits agencies to sandbag regulated parties and frustrates notice | Argues courts may consider agency interpretations even when presented in litigation | Court declined to review; dissent criticized deference in that posture |
| Whether the Department’s specific interpretation here is consistent with the regulation | Petitioner contends the Department’s interpretation is inconsistent with plain regulatory text and ordinary English | Department argued its interpretation correctly construes the regulatory scheme | Seventh Circuit deferred to Department; Supreme Court denied certiorari (no change) |
| Whether Auer deference undermines separation of powers and rulemaking notice | Petitioner and dissent argue it shifts judicial power to agencies and encourages vague rulemaking | Defendants and proponents argue deference respects agencies’ expertise and regulatory context | No Supreme Court decision altering doctrine; dissent urged overruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (establishes deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) (early articulation of deference to agency interpretation of its regulation)
- Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (2013) (discusses limits and application of Auer deference)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. 92 (2015) (Justice Thomas and others called for reevaluation of Auer; discussed in concurrences)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) (refused to apply Auer deference in that case)
- Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U.S. 50 (2011) (criticized Auer deference and its effects on predictability and notice)