Oregon v. Norton

How courts have described this case

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

• “No statutory provision defines the terms ‘restore’ or ‘restoration of lands’ and no provision expressly limits the Secretary’s authority to interpret these terms. Thus, I find the statutory language ambiguous[.]”
• after laying out the Chevron two-part analysis, the 18 court observed, “[i]n reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute governing Indian tribes, the court must also consider canons of construction relevant to Indian law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).