Austin v. Town of Farmington, 826 F.3d 622 (2016)

Citation: Austin v. Town of Farmington, 826 F.3d 622 (2016)
Parent Document: Austin v. Town of Farmington, 826 F.3d 622 (2016)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2016-06-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3215339/austin-v-town-of-farmington/ ↗

Full Text

1,125 chars

7
             We note that the Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications is a policy
     statement, rather than an authoritative interpretation of Section 3604. Therefore, it
     does not carry the force of law and is not accorded Chevron deference. See
     Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (“[I]nterpretations contained in
     policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the
     force of law[,] do not warrant Chevron-style deference.”); see also Barnhart v.
     Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 221-22 (2002). It does, however, still qualify for the lower
     deference accorded by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., which
     gives deference to interpretive rules according to their persuasiveness, evaluated
     under a four factor test. 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944) (evaluating persuasiveness of
     interpretive rules according to (1) the thoroughness of the agency's investigation;
     (2) the validity the agency’s reasoning; (3) the consistency of the agency’s
     interpretation over time; and (4) other persuasive powers of the agency).

Other Sections in This Document (310)

Full Text