Syllabus | Opinion [ Thomas ] | Concurrence [ Stevens ] | Concurrence [ Breyer ] | Dissent [ Scalia ] |
---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 27, 2005]
Justice Stevens, concurring.
While I join the Courts opinion in full, I add this caveat concerning Part IIIB, which correctly explains why a court of appeals interpretation of an ambiguous provision in a regulatory statute does not foreclose a contrary reading by the agency. That explanation would not necessarily be applicable to a decision by this Court that would presumably remove any pre-existing ambiguity.