Cite as: 534 U. S. 438 (2002)
Syllabus
of both Houses, which are memorialized in the unambiguous statutory text. Pp. 456-457.
(c) Also unavailing is the Commissioner's argument that construing the "related person" provision to exclude a signatory's direct successor in interest would be contrary to Congress' stated purposes of ensuring that each Combined Fund beneficiary's health care costs are borne (if possible) by the person with the most direct responsibility for the beneficiary, not by persons that had no connection with the beneficiary or by the public fisc. The Commissioner appears to request application of some form of an absurd results test. Respondents answer correctly that this Court rarely invokes such a test to override unambiguous legislation, and offer several explanations for why Congress would have purposefully exempted successors in interest of a signatory operator from the "related person" definition. Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, this Court need neither accept nor reject a particular "plausible" explanation for why Congress would have written a statute as it did. Negotiations surrounding the bill's enactment tell a typical story of legislative battle among interest groups, Congress, and the President. It is quite possible that a bill that assigned liability to successors of signatory operators would not have survived the legislative process. The deals brokered during a Committee markup, on the floor of the two Houses, during a joint House and Senate Conference, or in negotiations with the President are not to be second-guessed by this Court, whose role is to interpret the language of the statute enacted by Congress. The Court will not alter unambiguous text in order to satisfy the Commissioner's policy preferences. Pp. 458-462.
(d) Finally, the Court rejects the Commissioner's suggestion that, because it was reasonable for her to conclude that direct successors of a signatory operator should be responsible for the operator's employees, her interpretation is entitled to deference. In the context of an unambiguous statute, this Court need not contemplate deferring to an agency's interpretation. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843. P. 462.
226 F. 3d 291, affirmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O'Connor and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 462.
Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Acting As-
441
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007