Kisor v. Wilkie
Headline: High Court preserves deference to agencies’ reasonable readings of ambiguous rules, limits that deference, and sends a veteran’s retroactive benefits case back for further review.
Holding: Auer deference remains valid but applies only when a regulation is genuinely ambiguous after exhausting interpretive tools and the agency's reasonable, authoritative interpretation warrants deference.
- Keeps Auer deference but narrows its scope for ambiguous regulations.
- Requires courts to exhaust traditional interpretive tools before deferring to agencies.
- Sends veteran’s retroactive benefits claim back for reconsideration under clarified standards.
Summary
Background
James Kisor is a Vietnam War veteran who first applied for VA disability benefits in 1982 and was denied. He moved to reopen his claim in 2006 and the VA later found he had PTSD but awarded benefits only from the reopening date. The Board of Veterans' Appeals, through a single judge, read the VA regulation to require new records to contradict the basis of the earlier denial. The Federal Circuit upheld that reading by deferring to the Board under Auer deference.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether to overrule Auer deference and declined to do so, but sharply narrowed when it applies. Courts must exhaust traditional interpretive tools and find a regulation genuinely ambiguous before deferring. Even then, an agency reading must be reasonable and must reflect the agency's authoritative, expertise-based, and fair and considered judgment; it must not create unfair surprise and must implicate the agency's comparative competence. The Court found the Federal Circuit erred by quickly labeling the VA regulation ambiguous and by not deciding whether a single-judge Board decision reflects agency-wide, considered judgment. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings under the clarified standards.
Real world impact
The ruling keeps the practice of deferring to agencies' reasonable interpretations of genuinely ambiguous regulations while imposing clear limits. It reinforces that courts must analyze text and context first, preserves judges' central role in interpreting rules, and sends Mr. Kisor's benefits dispute back for renewed review.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices concurred in parts; Justice Gorsuch (joined in part by others) would have overruled Auer entirely, arguing it gives agencies excessive interpretive power.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?