This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
This case concerns a petition to overturn the Supreme Court’s deference doctrines—Seminole Rock and Auer—arguing that they should no longer apply to agency interpretations. The petition was argued before the Supreme Court on March 27 2019.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Paul W. Hughes)
According to Paul W. Hughes, deference does not apply in this case; the doctrines should be overturned.
According to Petitioner (Paul W. Hughes), according to Petitioner (Paul W. Hughes), overturning Seminole Rock and Auer is critical to restore notice‑and‑comment rule‑making as a democratic check on agencies.
Respondent (Secretary of Veterans Affairs / VA Board)
According to General Francisco, multiple reasonable constructions of a statute are permissible, reflecting the virtue of Seminole Rock.
According to General Francisco, overturning the doctrines would require relitigation of every regulation currently decided under Seminole Rock.
According to Agency (VA Board), according to Agency (VA Board), individual Board decisions do not reflect the considered judgment of the agency as a whole.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh questioned whether impediments to efficient notice‑and‑comment rule‑making have pushed the government toward the challenged approach.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh raised concern that judges might find an agency’s interpretation wrong yet feel compelled to defer to it.
Justice Alito asked whether overruling Auer and Seminole Rock would create uncertainty for cases that relied on those doctrines.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether the Court is being asked to overrule Auer itself.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned whether the argument showed inter‑branch disrespect.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor sought clarification on whether a Board of Immigration Appeals decision alone is sufficient.
- [1] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 42
- [2] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 45
- [3] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 47
- [4] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 58
- [5] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 66
- [6] f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdf, p. 68
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f0e0cfdff10ed443768d-r1-87dd4503a477016f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.