27 Cited authorities

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
463 U.S. 29 (1983) Cited 6,634 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
503 U.S. 249 (1992) Cited 2,701 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
556 U.S. 502 (2009) Cited 1,043 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that agencies may not change their policies "sub silentio "
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
488 U.S. 204 (1988) Cited 1,716 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”
Paroline v. United States
572 U.S. 434 (2014) Cited 608 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that restitution is "proper under § 2259 only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses"
Pennhurst State School v. Halderman
451 U.S. 1 (1981) Cited 1,228 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Spending Clause legislation is like a "contract," in that "[t]he legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power ... rests on whether the [federal-funding recipient] voluntarily and knowingly accepts [the contract’s] terms"
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
512 U.S. 218 (1994) Cited 387 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding Congress did not authorize "a fundamental revision" of the law through a "subtle device"
Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala
988 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 404 times
Holding that in agency review context there was no real distinction between questions presented in Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment
Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius
746 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Cited 106 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that an announcement that the agency would “clarify” an existing policy did not suggest that the agency was “open to reconsidering existing policy”
Village of Harrington v. Surface Transp. Bd.
636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 109 times
Holding that an agency warrants deference at Chevron step two “only if the agency has offered a reasoned explanation for why it chose that interpretation” judged according to “only the rationales the [agency] actually offered in its decision”
Section 1395ww - Payments to hospitals for inpatient hospital services
42 U.S.C. § 1395ww Cited 608 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing for a wage-index adjustment

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. et al v. Sebelius

27 Cited authorities

Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

Holding that agencies may not change their policies "sub silentio "

Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”

Holding that restitution is "proper under § 2259 only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses"

Holding that Spending Clause legislation is like a "contract," in that "[t]he legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power ... rests on whether the [federal-funding recipient] voluntarily and knowingly accepts [the contract’s] terms"

Holding Congress did not authorize "a fundamental revision" of the law through a "subtle device"

Holding that in agency review context there was no real distinction between questions presented in Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment

Holding that an announcement that the agency would “clarify” an existing policy did not suggest that the agency was “open to reconsidering existing policy”

Holding that an agency warrants deference at Chevron step two “only if the agency has offered a reasoned explanation for why it chose that interpretation” judged according to “only the rationales the [agency] actually offered in its decision”

Providing for a wage-index adjustment