- 118 -
797-798. Based on the Blue Book and the deference to be accorded
under Chevron, however, the court upheld the validity of the
regulation. Id.
F. Summary of the Cases
Thus, all five of the Courts of Appeals accorded the 9T
regulation Chevron deference.
III. Post-Mead Case Law
In the years that have passed since the U.S. Courts of
Appeals issued their opinions regarding the 9T regulation,
principles of law have developed regarding the Chevron doctrine.
See supra, part I. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, the circuit to which appeal in the instant case lies,
has stated: “Mead clarified that Chevron’s expansive conception
of judicial deference to an administrative agency’s legal
interpretation applies only when ‘Congress delegated authority to
the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and
* * * the agency interpretation claiming deference was
promulgated in the exercise of that authority.’” Pool Co. v.
Cooper, 274 F.3d 173, 177 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001). In the absence of
Chevron deference, pursuant to Mead, the agency’s interpretation
is accorded respect under Skidmore according to its “power to
persuade”. Id. at 177; see also Landmark Legal Found. v. IRS,
267 F.3d 1132, 1135-1136 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (when Chevron deference
does not apply, the IRS’s interpretations are entitled to “no
more than the weight derived from their ‘power to persuade.’”).
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011