Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)

Citation
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Parent Document
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Effective Date
2001-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

648 chars
Because we find that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue that is contrary to HUD’s construction, HUD’s interpretation is not entitled to. deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778. “The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent.” Id. Thus, we do not reach the question under Chevron of whether an administrative interpretation is reasonable or permissible, for “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.” Id. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778. A. Textual Interpretation