Afternoon round-up: Kisor v. Wilkie
on Jun 26, 2019 at 5:41 pm
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 at Howe on the Court. Early coverage comes from Adam Liptak of The New York Times; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Andrew Chung of Reuters; Jessica Gresko of the AP; Greg Stohr of Bloomberg; Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN; Richard Wolf of USA Today; Josh Gerstein of Politico; 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 at Bloomberg; Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog; Jay Michaelson at the Daily 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.
