Case Citator › Auer v. Robbins

Auer v. Robbins

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
519 U.S. 452
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
84 of 84
Citing cases (total)
2,661
Treatment dates
2003–2026
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Auer v. Robbins remains binding but has been criticized and limited; the five confirmed treatments are listed below. Kisor v. Wilkie retained Auer deference while confining it to genuinely ambiguous regulations and imposing additional prerequisites.
More on how this was screened

Keys v. Barnhart and Forrest General Hospital v. Azar criticized the doctrine's continued vitality, while Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning v. California Coastal Commission and Plesha v. Ascension Health Alliance questioned its footing after later Supreme Court decisions. All 84 flagged citations have been read; the others applied Auer or Kisor, reported another decision's treatment, rejected an argument that Auer had been overruled, concerned unrelated authority, or were superseded versions or duplicate copies of the same opinion.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,661 later cases cite Auer v. Robbins; 84 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Auer v. Robbins?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court retained Auer deference but expressly confined it to genuinely ambiguous regulations and made its application depend on additional considerations.

    Kisor v. Wilkie · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The only question presented here is whether we should overrule those decisions, discarding the deference they give to agencies. We answer that question no. Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations. But even as we uphold it, we reinforce its limits. Auer deference is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. Whether to apply it depends on a range of considerations that we have noted now and again, but compile and further develop today. The deference doctrine we describe is potent in its place, but cabined in its scope.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Seventh Circuit criticized Auer's continued vitality after Christensen and its premise that an agency may make law through positions advanced in briefs.

    Keys v. Barnhart · Seventh Circuit · filed

    Probably there is little left of Auer. ... It is odd to think of agencies as making law by means of statements made in briefs, since agency briefs, at least below the Supreme Court level, normally are not reviewed by the members of the agency itself; and it is odd to think of Congress delegating lawmaking power to unreviewed staff decisions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Fifth Circuit criticized Auer as having “lost its luster” and predicted that the doctrine's remaining life was short.

    Forrest General Hospital v. Azar · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Auer’s hours seem numbered.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The California Court of Appeal questioned Auer deference's continuing viability, reasoning that Loper Bright's rationale was arguably irreconcilable with it even though Loper Bright did not expressly overrule Auer.

    Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning v. California Coastal Commission · California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five · filed

    And just five years ago, the high court in Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) 588 U.S. 558, 563 (Kisor), reaffirmed that “Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations.” But more recently, that same court appeared to cast doubt on the viability of Auer deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2263 (Loper). ... Although Loper did not expressly overrule Auer and Kisor, its reasoning is arguably irreconcilable with Auer deference.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The district court questioned Auer's continuing doctrinal footing after Loper Bright overruled Chevron, while recognizing that only the Supreme Court could overrule Auer.

    Plesha v. Ascension Health Alliance · E.D. Mo. · filed

    Auer is on shaky footing after the Supreme Court overruled its statutory counterpart, Chevron deference, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). ... Even if a Supreme Court decision rests on “increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations,” “it is [the Supreme] Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Auer v. Robbins and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace