Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Barnhart Vs. Walton

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 2002

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

51 entries 4 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Udall Vs. Tallman US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  2. Auer Vs. Robbins US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1997
  3. Morton Vs. Ruiz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1974
  4. Watt Vs. Alaska US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1981
  5. U.S. 212 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security V. Walton
    Search
  6. interpretation, and if not, (2) whether the interpretation exceeds permissible bounds. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  7. the Agency's own longstanding interpretation, which should be accorded particular deference, North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell
    Search
  8. should be disregarded because its formal regulations were only recently enacted is also rejected. E. g., Smiley v. Citibank
    Search
  9. to the Agency considerable authority to fill in matters of detail related to its administration. See Schweiker v. Gray
    Search
  10. to the contrary, that both fall within the Agency's lawful interpretive authority. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  11. The District Court affirmed the Agency's decision, but the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Walton v. Apfel
    Search
  12. the Fourth Circuit's first holding conflicts with those of other Circuits, compare 235 F. 3d, at 189-190, with Titus v. Sulli-
    Search
  13. van, 4 F.3d 590 , 594-595 (CA8 1993), and Alexander v. Richardson
    Search
  14. Fed. Reg. 42774 (2000). Courts grant an agency's interpretation of its own regulations considerable legal leeway. Auer v. Robbins
    Search
  15. see also United States v. Mead
    Search
  16. duration. North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell
    Search
  17. should interpret the same statutory words differently in closely related contexts. See Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF
    Search
  18. quoting Sorenson v. Secretary
    Search
  19. those regulations, perhaps in response to this litigation. We have previously rejected similar arguments. Smiley v. Citibank
    Search
  20. quoting Morton v. Ruiz
    Search
  21. U. S. 199 , 231 (1974))). If this Court's opinion in Christensen v. Harris
    Search
  22. County, 529 U. S. 576 (2000), suggested an absolute rule to the contrary, our later opinion in United States v. Mead
    Search
  23. did not emerge out of notice-and-comment rulemaking. 533 U. S., at 230-231 (citing NationsBank of N. c., N. A. v. Variable
    Search
  24. legal lens through which to view the legality of the Agency interpretation here at issue. See United States v. Mead
    Search
  25. with the statute's plain language, 235 F. 3d, at 191. And, here, other courts have agreed. See Salamalekis v. Commissioner
    Search
  26. Newton v. Chater
    Search
  27. Walker v. Secretary
    Search
  28. McDonald v. Bowen
    Search
  29. authority to fill in, through interpretation, matters of detail related to its administration. See Schweiker v. Gray
    Search
  30. As the Court acknowledges, the recency of these regulations is irrelevant, see ante, at 220-221 (citing Smiley v. Citibank
    Search
  31. dated back to the very origins of the statute, was more likely to reflect the single correct meaning. See, e. g., Watt v. Alaska
    Search
  32. to another, so long as the most recent interpretation is reasonable its antiquity should make no difference. Cf. Rust v. Sullivan
    Search
  33. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  34. were authoritative enough (or whatever-else-enough Mead requires) to qualify for deference. See United States v. Mead
    Search
  35. Syllabus Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security V. Walton
    Search
  36. North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell
    Search
  37. Smiley v. Citibank
    Search
  38. See Schweiker v. Gray
    Search
  39. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  40. Walton v. Apfel
    Search
  41. Titus v. Sulli-
    Search
  42. and Alexander v. Richardson
    Search
  43. United States v. Mead
    Search
  44. See Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF
    Search
  45. Sorenson v. Secretary
    Search
  46. Christensen v. Harris
    Search
  47. N. A. v. Variable
    Search
  48. See United States v. Mead
    Search
  49. See Salamalekis v. Commissioner
    Search
  50. Cf. Rust v. Sullivan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial