-80-
Moreover, apart from the previously mentioned differences,
the Court in Natl. Cable & Telecomm. Association v. Brand X
Internet Servs., supra, stated that regulatory interpretations
do not prevail over a contrary previous judicial interpretation
when the judicial tribunal referred to the interpreted statute
as unambiguous. Although the judicial tribunals in Ardbern Co.
v. Commissioner, 120 F.2d 424 (4th Cir. 1941), Blenheim Co. v.
Commissioner, 125 F.2d 906 (4th Cir. 1942), and Anglo-Am. Direct
Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, supra, did not state explicitly
that they were applying the unambiguous meaning of the word
“manner”, we believe that they did so, given their analysis and
the fact that their interpretation of that word was purely one
of statutory construction that resulted from the employment of
traditional tools of statutory construction. “It is
emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department
to say what the law is”, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177
(1803), and “If a court, employing traditional tools of
statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an
intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is
the law and must be given effect”, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 843 n.9; see also
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 (1987). Moreover,
where “the only or principal dispute relates to the meaning of
the statutory term, the controversy must ultimately be resolved,
Page: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011