A SCOTUS case worth watching

Amanda Frost (American) describes the issues in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court in today's "Academic Round-up" on SCOTUSblog.

The Court recently granted cert. in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case which may lead the Court to revisit whether an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations merit deference. ...

At issue in Christopher is whether pharmaceutical sales representatives fall within the Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption from overtime pay. In trying to answer that question, the lower courts have split on whether to give deference to the Department of Labor’s view that pharmaceutical sales reprentatives do not qualify for the FLSA exemption, and thus must be paid overtime. According to respondent SmithKline Beecham, the Department’s position, taken in amicus briefs filed in these cases, is an about-face by the agency and merits no deference — a conclusion with which the Ninth Circuit agreed. But the Second Circuit relied on the agency’s amicus brief to guide its decision, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Auer v. Robbins requiring courts to defer to agency interpretations of their own rules.

The case raises at least two interesting questions regarding the interplay between courts and agencies.  First, the court may use this case to address whether an agency’s change in position merits deference. ... Also lurking in this case is the threshold question of whether agencies should ever get deference for interpretation of their own regulations, whether consistent or not. The Supreme Court has granted such deference ever since its 1945 decision in Bowles v. Seminole Rock, and it reaffirmed that position more recently in Auer v. Robbins. But there are some interesting arguments against doing so.

More discussion and links in the post. Might be a good intro to the whole deference issue. EMM