Changes

''Christensen v. Harris County'', 529 U.S. 576 (2000), established the rule that a regulatory [[agency]]'s interpretation, as set forth in an internal guidance memoranda or other means lacking benefits of the rulemaking procedure, does not qualify for the dispositive force described in ''[[Chevron]]''.  "Interpretations such as those in ... policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law--do not warrant ''[[Chevron]]''-style deference."  ''Id.'' at 587. ''See also United States v. Mead Corp.'', 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001).

'''''Christensen v. Harris County''''', 529 U.S. 576 (2000), established the rule that a regulatory [[agency]]'s interpretation, as set forth in an internal guidance memoranda or other means lacking benefits of the rulemaking procedure, does not qualify for the dispositive force described in ''[[Chevron]]''.  "Interpretations such as those in ... policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law--do not warrant ''[[Chevron]]''-style deference."  ''Id.'' at 587. ''See also United States v. Mead Corp.'', 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001).

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]