Amalgamated Sugar Co. LLC v. Vilsack

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Chevron deference was inappropriate where the agency itself, rather than the U.S. government in general, had a financial interest in a particular statutory interpretation
• holding that, as a matter of 19 statutory construction, a court must follow the definition of a term expressly 20 defined by Congress, even if the definition “varies from that term’s ordinary 21 meaning.”
• noting that, while not an automatic rebuttal of deference, “[w]here an agency interprets or administers a statute in a way that furthers its own administrative or financial interests, the agency interpretation must be subject to greater scrutiny”
• agency policy guidance that conflicts with an agency regulation is invalid and does not require court deference
• transaction “was attempting to resurrect a dead company”
• transaction \was attempting to resurrect a dead company\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).