Gose v. United States Postal Service

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that a regulatory phrase is ambiguous when “the regulation is vague as to the scope of the phrase”
• explaining that we defer to an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations “because the agency, as the promulgator of the regulation, is particularly well suited to speak to its original intent in adopting the regulation”
• where an agency’s proposed interpretation is “per se inconsistent with the regulation [it] may be accorded no deference”
• “The courts may not accept appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations for agency action; [SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947
• \Deference is particularly appropriate when the agency interpretation has been consistently applied.\
• “Deference is particularly appropriate when the agency interpretation has been consistently applied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).