Nancy Strickland v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Third-Party

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that reviewing court may “examine the legislative history, albeit skeptically, in search of an unmistakable expression of congressional intent”
• explaining the agency need not adopt the “best” rule, only a rational one
• when statute is subject to more than one possible interpretation, “it is up to the [agency], not the courts, to balance the relevant policy considerations and formulate a rule”
• \The agency need not write a rule that serves the statute in the best or most logical manner; it need only write a rule that flows rationally from a permissible construction of the statute.\
• “The agency need not write a rule that serves the statute in the best or most logical manner; it need only write a rule that flows rationally from a permissible construction of the statute.”
• “[Cjourts afford varying degrees of deference to agency interpretations in varying circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).