U.S. v Mead Corporation, 99-1434

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSouter
Citation533 U.S. 218,121 S.Ct. 2164,150 L.Ed.2d 292
Parties UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. MEAD CORPORATIONSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Decision Date18 June 2001
Docket Number99-1434

533 U.S. 218
121 S.Ct. 2164
150 L.Ed.2d 292

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
v.
MEAD CORPORATION

No. 99-1434.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Argued November 8, 2000
Decided June 18, 2001

Syllabus

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States authorizes the United States Customs Service to classify and fix the rate of duty on imports, under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. As relevant here, the Secretary provides for tariff rulings before the entry of goods by regulations authorizing "ruling letters" setting tariff classifications for particular imports. Any of the 46 port-of-entry Customs offices and the Customs Headquarters Office may issue such letters. Respondent imports "day planners," three-ring binders with pages for daily schedules, phone numbers and addresses, a calendar, and suchlike. After classifying the planners as duty-free for several years, Customs Headquarters issued a ruling letter classifying them as bound diaries subject to tariff. Mead filed suit in the Court of International Trade, which granted the Government summary judgment. In reversing, the Federal Circuit found that ruling letters should not be treated like Customs regulations, which receive the highest level of deference under Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, because they are not preceded by notice and comment as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), do not carry the force of law, and are not intended to clarify importers's rights and obligations beyond the specific case. The court gave no deference at all to the ruling letter at issue.

Held: Administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of such authority. Such delegation may be shown in a variety of ways, as by an agency's power to engage in adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking, or by some other indication of comparable congressional intent. A Customs ruling letter has no claim to Chevron deference, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness. Pp. 7-19.

(a) When Congress has explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there has been any express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific statutory provision by regulation, and any ensuing regulation is binding unless procedurally defective, arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Even in the absence of an express delegation of authority on a particular question, agencies charged with applying a statute necessarily make all sorts of interpretive choices, and while not all of those choices bind judges to follow them, they may influence courts facing questions the agencies have already answered. The weight accorded to an administrative judgment "will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control." Skidmore, supra, at 140. In Chevron, this Court identified a category of interpretive choices distinguished by an additional reason for judicial deference, recognizing that Congress engages not only in express, but also in implicit, delegation of specific interpretive authority. It can be apparent from the agency's generally conferred authority and other statutory circumstances that Congress would expect the agency to be able to speak with the force of law when addressing ambiguity in the statute or fills in a space in the enacted law, even one about which Congress did not have intent as to a particular result. When circumstances implying such an expectation exist, a reviewing court must accept the agency's position if Congress has not previously spoken to the point at issue and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. A very good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron treatment is express congressional authorizations to engage in the rulemaking or adjudication process that produces the regulations or rulings for which deference is claimed. Thus, the overwhelming number of cases applying Chevron deference have reviewed the fruits of notice-and-comment rulemaking or formal adjudication. Although the fact that the tariff classification at issue was not a product of such formal process does not alone bar Chevron's application, cf., e.g., NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256-257, 263, there are ample reasons to deny Chevron deference here. Pp. 7-12.

(b) There is no indication on the statute's face that Congress meant to delegate authority to Customs to issue classification rulings with the force of law. Also, it is difficult to see in agency practice any indication that Customs set out with a lawmaking pretense in mind, for it does not generally engage in notice-and-comment practice and a letter's binding character as a ruling stops short of third parties. Indeed, any suggestion that rulings intended to have the force of law are being churned out at a rate of 10,000 a year at 46 offices is self-refuting. Nor do statutory amendments effective after this case arose reveal a new congressional objective of treating classification decisions generally as rulemaking with force of law or suggest any intent to create a Chevron patchwork of classification rules, some with force of law, some without. In sum, classification rulings are best treated like "interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines," Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587, and thus beyond the Chevron pale. Pp. 12-15.

(c) This does not mean, however, that the letters are due no deference. Chevron did not eliminate Skidmore's holding that an agency's interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the "specialized experience and broader investigations and information" available to the agency, 323 U.S., at 139, and given the value of uniformity in its administrative and judicial understandings of what a national law requires, id., at 140. There is room at least to raise a Skidmore claim here, where the regulatory scheme is highly detailed, and Customs can bring the benefit of specialized experience to bear on this case's questions. The classification ruling may at least seek a respect proportional to its "power to persuade," Skidmore, supra, at 140, and may claim the merit of its writer's thoroughness, logic and expertness, its fit with prior interpretations, and any other sources of weight. Underlying this Court's position is a choice about the best way to deal with the great variety of ways in which the laws invest the Government's administrative arms with discretion, and with procedures for exercising it, in giving meaning to Acts of Congress. The Court said nothing in Chevron to eliminate Skidmore's recognition of various justifications for deference depending on statutory circumstances and agency action. Judicial responses to such action must continue to differentiate between the two cases. Any Skidmore assessment here ought to be made in the first instance by the lower courts. Pp. 15-19.

185 F.3d 1304, vacated and remanded.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether a tariff classification ruling by the United States Customs Service deserves judicial deference. The Federal Circuit rejected Customs's invocation of Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in support of such a ruling, to which it gave no deference. We agree that a tariff classification has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron, there being no indication that Congress intended such a ruling to carry the force of law, but we hold that under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), the ruling is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.

I

A

Imports are taxed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 19 U.S.C. 1202. Title 19 U.S.C. 1500(b) provides that Customs "shall, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of the Treasury] ... fix the final classification and rate of duty applicable to ... merchandise" under the HTSUS. Section 1502(a) provides that

"[t]he Secretary of the Treasury shall establish and promulgate such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the law (including regulations establishing procedures for the issuance of binding rulings prior to the entry of the merchandise concerned), and may disseminate such information as may be necessary to secure a just, impartial, and uniform appraisement of imported merchandise and the classification and assessment of duties thereon at the various ports of entry." (FN1)

See also 1624 (general delegation to Secretary to issue rules and regulations for the admission of goods).

The Secretary provides for tariff rulings before the entry of goods by regulations authorizing "ruling letters" setting tariff classifications for particular imports. 19 CFR 177.8 (2000). A ruling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2502 practice notes
  • Food for human consumption: Current good manufacturing practice— Dietary supplements; manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations,
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 25, 2007
    • June 25, 2007
    ...the public health and effectively implement our statutory authority to prescribe dietary supplement CGMP. See United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 227-228 (2001); Nationsbank of North Carolina v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256-58 (1995); Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844; Forester......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 25, 2007
    • June 25, 2007
    ...the public health and effectively implement our statutory authority to prescribe dietary supplement CGMP. See United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 227-228 (2001); Nationsbank of North Carolina v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256-58 (1995); Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844; Forester......
  • Meetings: Petition for Rulemaking to Preempt Certain State Laws; public hearing,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 21, 2005
    • March 21, 2005
    ...in the enacted law, even one about which `Congress did not actually have an intent' as to a particular result.'' United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at Riegle-Neal I and II fundamentally changed federal law for state and national banks by authorizing b......
  • Water pollution; discharge of pollutants (NPDES): Maine,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 18, 2003
    • November 18, 2003
    ...an advisory legal opinion such as DOI's May 16, 2000 letter is owed respect to the extent it is persuasive. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 2175-76 (2001); Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000); and AIAM v. Mass. DEP, 208 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. Never......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2556 cases
  • United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, No. 11–139.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 25, 2012
    ...interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.” 467 U.S., at 843–844, 104 S.Ct. 2778.See also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) ; Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U.S. 735, 741, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) ;......
  • Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. Hahn, Case No. 16-cv-01574-VC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 19, 2019
    ...to Chevron deference because Congress "engage[d] in express delegation of specific interpretive authority." United States v. Mead Corp. , 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 authorized the FDA to "set forth initial interpretations of ......
  • Loan Syndications v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16–652 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 22, 2016
    ...unless procedurally defective, arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to the statute." United States v. Mead Corp. , 533 U.S. 218, 227, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). Nonetheless, the agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explana......
  • New Mexico Health Connections v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. CIV 16-0878 JB\JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 19, 2018
    ...whether Congress intended the agency to "speak with the force of law" in making the decision in question, United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001) -- opinion letters by the agency, for example, do not speak with the force of law and are thus not entitled to Chevron deference, s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
24 books & journal articles
  • Agency Deference After Kisor v. Wilkie
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy Nbr. 18-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...Mead strongly militates against affording the Justice Department Chevron deference for its reading of federal criminal laws. 160. 533 U.S. 218 (2001). 161. Id. at 224. 162. Id. (citations omitted). 163. Id. at 226–38. 164. Id. at 226–27. 165. Mead noted that “a very good indicator of delega......
  • Avoiding the Contribution 'Catch-22': CERCLA Administrative Orders for Cleanup Are Civil Actions
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 46-9, September 2016
    • September 1, 2016
    ...among reasonable options.”); City of Arlington v. Federal Commc’ns Comm’n, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1866 (2014); United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). he Chevron doctrine does not, however, apply to the interpretation of the terms of CERCLA liability, including contribution liability. S......
  • The Final Auer: How Weakening the Deference Doctrine May Impact Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-10, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...a novel interpretation of its longstanding interconnection regulations, nov- 88. Id . at 255-56 ( citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001)). 89. Id . at 259. 90. Id . at 268. 91. Id . at 269. 92. 557 U.S. 261, 283, 39 ELR 20133 (2009). 93. Id . at 283-84. 94. Healy, s......
  • Ongoing Actions, Ongoing Issues: Trying Again to Free Federal Dams From the ESA
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 49-11, November 2019
    • November 1, 2019
    ...in a form that carries the force of law—including making rules using the process of notice and comment. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27, 231 (2001). 215. See Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Environmental Prot. Agency, 846 F.3d 492, 47 ELR 20011 (2d Cir. 20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT