Demarquis Rogers v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that agency regulation was not entitled to Chevron deference as to the meaning of a statutory provision that was \unambiguous\
• holding that the statute’s definition of whistleblower applies throughout the statute
• explaining that the relevant statute’s “purpose and design corroborate . . . comprehension” of a specific provision
• explaining that an individual is not protected by the anti-retaliation provisions until the individual has reported misconduct to the SEC
• noting that retaliation protection requires compliance with F–9’s reporting methods but that “[n]othing in today’s opinion prevents the agency from enumerating additional means of SEC reporting”
• holding in the context of another subsection of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 that a “whistleblower” is a person who provides information to the Commission specifically, not to any other entity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).