In a February oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch called one of the Supreme Court’s precedents “a dog’s breakfast”—a rarely used colloquial way of saying that it was a complete mess.

On Wednesday, the court served up what may prove to be another canine meal in the form of Kisor v. Wilkie. The dissent-free decision seemed to have rescued the so-called “Auer doctrine” on deference to regulatory agencies, even though most of the nine justices criticized it and said the doctrine is just one more case away from being overruled.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]