Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-10-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8

Full Text

938 chars

Various factors—some not even discussed by the
majority, and none meaningfully credited—require additional
deference here.      We grant additional deference to an
“unchanging policy,” Hagans v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 694 F.3d
287, 304-05 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Alaska Dep’t of Envtl.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 492 (2004)) and to
interpretations issued contemporaneously with the statute. Id.
(citing Madison v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., 233 F.3d 175,
187 (3d Cir. 2000)). Here, HUD first found that enhanced
vouchers provided a “right to remain” in 2001, immediately
after the statute was originally enacted, and never wavered
from that interpretation through the pendency of this litigation.
We “normally accord particular deference to an agency
interpretation of longstanding duration.” Barnhart v. Walton,
535 U.S. 212, 220 (2002) (internal quotations omitted). Yet
the majority grants this interpretation no deference at all.