Cite as: 535 U. S. 212 (2002)
Opinion of Scalia, J.
of the agency position, see ante, at 219-220—then I think the Court should state why those interpretations were authoritative enough (or whatever-else-enough Mead requires) to qualify for deference. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218 (2001). I of course agree that more than notice-and-comment rulemaking qualifies, see ante, at 221-222, but that concession alone does not validate the Social Security Ruling, the Disability Insurance State Manual, and the OASI Disability Insurance Letter. (Only the latter two, I might point out, antedate the congressional reenactments upon which the Court relies.)
The SSA's recently enacted regulations emerged from notice-and-comment rulemaking and merit deference. No more need be said.
227
Page: Index Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Last modified: October 4, 2007