Citation network
Carcieri Vs. Salazar
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Carcieri V. SalazarSearch
-
applied the principles of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
s text is plain and unambiguous, United States v. GonzalesSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 4, the statute must be applied according to its terms, see, e.g. , Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
s passage. See e.g., Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Carcieri v. SalazarSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Carcieri V. SalazarSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-526 Donald L. Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island, Et Al., Petitioners V. KenSearch
-
authority as part of an effort to assimilate tribal members into the local population. See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. NationalSearch
-
s request in 1988. See Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island v. EasternSearch
-
s planned construction of housing on that parcel had to comply with local regulations. Narragansett Indian Tribe v. NarragansettSearch
-
s decision. See Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island v. EasternSearch
-
all tribes in existence in 1934, but does not require a tribe to have been federally recognized on that date. Carcieri v. NortonSearch
-
Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, first in a panel decision, Carcieri v. NortonSearch
-
Having found the statute ambiguous, the Court of Appeals applied the principles set forth in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
construction under which we must first determine whether the statutory text is plain and unambiguous. United States v. GonzalesSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 4 (1997). If it is, we must apply the statute according to its terms. See, e.g. , Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
Lamie v. UnitedSearch
-
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. UnionSearch
-
Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Compensation Programs v. GreenwichSearch
-
Moskal v. UnitedSearch
-
Court, both before and after passage of the IRA, with respect to its use in other statutes. See, e.g. , Franklin v. UnitedSearch
-
citing United States v. PaulSearch
-
s enactment. See Barnhart v. SigmonSearch
-
s interpretation of this unambiguous statute, see Estate of Cowart v. NicklosSearch
-
Deal v. UnitedSearch
-
Reiter v. SonotoneSearch
-
was to reverse the loss of lands that Indians sustained under the General Allotment Act, see Atkinson Trading Co. v. ShirleySearch
-
U. S. 254 , 273 (2003) (plurality opinion) (quoting Morton v. MancariSearch
-
U. S. 535 , 551 (1974), and Posadas v. NationalSearch
-
Rhode Island v. NarragansettSearch
-
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. RhodeSearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
s status under it. See Christensen v. HarrisSearch
-
per curium) (quoting Fiallo v. BellSearch
-
Breyer, J., Concurring Carcieri V. SalazarSearch
-
Compare Montana v. KennedySearch
-
refers to time of statutory enactment), with Difford v. SecretarySearch
-
s greater knowledge of the circumstances in which a statute was enacted, cf. Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
see infra , at 2, that respect cannot help the Department here. Neither can Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
its interpretation is not entitled to Chevron deference, despite linguistic ambiguity. See United States v. MeadSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial