United States v. Mead Corp.
- Decided
- June 18, 2001
- Docket
- 99-1434
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,086 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Skidmore remained intact after Chevron and that Skidmore deference applies when Chevron deference does not — Barrios v. Holder (2009)
- holding that Chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to “delegated authority” — Aid Association for Lutherans v. United States Postal Service, American Bar Endowment v. United States Postal Service (2003)
- holding that Chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to “delegated authority” and the agency action has the “force of law” — Aid Association for Lutherans v. United States Postal Service, American Bar Endowment v. United States Postal Service (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether a tariff classification ruling by the United States Customs Service deserves judicial deference. The Federal Circuit rejected Customs’s invocation of Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), in support of such a ruling, to which it gave no deference. We agree that a tariff classification has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron, there being no indication that Congress intended such a ruling to carry the force of law, but we hold that under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944), the ruling is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.