Afternoon round-up: Kisor v. Wilkie

This morning the court issued an opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie. The court voted unanimously to send the case of veteran James Kisor back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had upheld a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs to retroactively deny Kisor benefits. The justices were divided however, on the larger issue presented in the case: whether to uphold the principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, known as Auer deference; they voted 5-4 to reaffirm the doctrine, but with limitations. Amy Howe covered the ruling for this blog; her coverage first appeared atHowe on the Court. Early coverage comes fromAdam Liptak of The New York Times; Robert Barnes ofThe Washington Post; Andrew Chung of Reuters; Jessica Gresko of theAP; Greg Stohr ofBloomberg; Ariane de VogueandDevan Cole of CNN; Richard Wolf ofUSA Today;Josh Gerstein ofPolitico; Mark Walsh of Education Week; Todd Ruger of Roll Call; Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg Law; Ellen Gilmer of E&E News; and Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal.

Early commentary comes from Noah Feldman atBloomberg; Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog;Jay Michaelson at theDaily Beast; David French at National Review;Quin Hillyer in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner; Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy; Lisa Soronen at the Council of State Governments blog; and Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress.