Nat'l Org. Of Veterans Advocates v. Secr'y Of Veterans Affairs

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that parties 17 decision is unworkable because in equating the phrase in section 1521(e) with the phrases in section 1513(a) and 1521(a
• holding remand is appropriate when “[i]t may be that the agency can provide a reasonable explanation for its decision[,] . . . [b]ut it has not yet done so”
• recognizing the authority of the Secretary to change regulations after a judicial decision
• turning to Chevron after noting that legislative history and Brown canon pushed in opposite directions
• remanding for the government to explain why it interpreted the identical language in two related statutes in two different ways
• finding remand without vacatur appropriate where “[i]t may be that the agency can provide a reasonable explanation for its decision” on remand, “[b]ut it has not yet done so”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).