Case Citator › United States v. Mead Corp.

United States v. Mead Corp.

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
533 U.S. 218
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
2024
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Mead Corp.'s threshold for Chevron deference was abrogated when the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Mead's holding that Customs ruling letters lack Chevron deference, and its direction to consider their persuasive force under Skidmore, remain intact.
More on how this was screened

All 42 flagged citations have been read; the change to the Chevron framework is listed below.

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.

42 later cases cite United States v. Mead Corp.; 42 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 United States v. Mead Corp.?

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

Abrogated

  • Loper Bright ended the Chevron deference inquiry for which Mead set the eligibility threshold.

    Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Mead, 533 U. S., at 226–227. In practice, that threshold requirement—sometimes called Chevron “step zero”—largely limits Chevron to “the fruits of notice-and-comment rulemaking or formal adjudication.” 533 U. S., at 230. ... Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Mead Corp. 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