Bridgestone/firestone, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the absence of specific language that Congress considered in the final statute did not speak to whether Congress rejected that scheme
• “[a]s long as the agency’s [construction of the statute is] consistent with the language and purpose of the statute, [the Court] must defer to the agency’s interpretation”
• At the Chevron step two stage, “[a]s long as the agency’s [construction of the statute is] consistent with the language and purpose of the statute, [the Court] must defer to the agency’s interpretation.”
• “[T]he pronouncements of a subsequent Congress, here 13 years after the passage of ERISA, are notoriously unreliable indicators of the intent of Congress at the time of passage, and we give very little weight to such revisionist legislative history”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).