| Kisor v. Wilkie | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 27, 2019 Decided June 26, 2019 | |
| Full case name | James L. Kisor v. Robert L. Wilkie |
| Docket no. | 18-15 |
| Citations | 588 U.S. (more) 139 S. Ct. 2400; 204 L. Ed. 2d 841 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Kisor v. Shulkin, 869 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017); rehearing en banc denied, 880 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 202 L. Ed. 2d 491 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| There is no sufficient cause to overturn Auer or Bowles, but courts must use all interpretive powers it has to affirm if the Auer deference is appropriate. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan (Parts I, II–B, III–B, and IV), joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Plurality | Kagan (Parts II–A and III–A), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Roberts (in part) |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment), joined by Thomas; Kavanaugh (Parts I, II, III, IV, and V); Alito (Parts I, II, and III) |
| Concurrence | Kavanaugh (in judgment), joined by Alito |
Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.
The case sought to have Auer overturned. The Court issued its decision in June 2019 that Kisor lacked sufficient motivation and rationale to overturn Auer on precedent, but did reverse and remand the veteran's case to be reheard with stricter adherence to the principles of whether the Auer deference did apply in the veteran's case.[1] However, the Court did state that there are times when the Auer deference may be inappropriate, and outlined rules for lower courts to use as a metric.