Salmeron v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even if an agency interpretation “could be owed Chevron deference, we do not defer to the agency when the statute is unambiguous”
• holding that Section 8127 is mandatory and requires the VA “to apply the Rule of Two to all contracting determinations and to award contracts to veteran-owned small businesses”
• holding that the exception applied because the contracts at issue would be fully performed is less than two years, a period \too short to complete judicial review of the lawfulness of the procurement.\
• observing that the “clause announc[ing] an objective . . . [did] not change the plain meaning of the operative clause”
• stating that \the word 'shall' usually connotes a requirement\ and equating \ shall \ with \ must \
• noting that “[w]hen a statute distinguishes between ‘may’ and ‘shall,’ it is generally clear that ‘shall’ imposes a mandatory duty”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).