IN RE MAGEE

Citator

Cited By

• DOE v. Reivitz, 830 F.2d 1441 (7th Cir. 1987)
  …Act. 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1982). See, e.g., United States v. Markgraf 736 F. 2d 1179, 1184 (7th Cir.1984) (“Deference is more appropriate where the agency has actively interpreted the statute through rule making.”) (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199, 105 S.Ct. 1154, 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985); Production Tool Corp. v. Employment & Training Admin., 688 F. 2d 1161, 1167 (7th Cir.1982). HHS did not engage in notice- and-comment rule making in issuing its AFDC-UP eligibility policy. The agency cannot…
• Scalise v. Thornburgh, 891 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …oses a mandatory obligation to issue substantive regulations governing the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion, our task is one of determining the congressional intent. United States v. Markgraf, 736 F. 2d 1179 (7th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199, 105 S.Ct. 1154, 84 L.Ed.2d 308 (1985). In making this determination, we have stated that courts should consider “the language of the statute; the legislative history; and the interpretation given by the administrative agency charged with enforcing…
• Orrego v. 833 W. Buena Joint Venture, 943 F.2d 730 (7th Cir. 1991)
  …onsistency of the agency's reasoning." United States v. Markgraf, 736 F. 2d 1179, 1184 (7th Cir.1984) (citing Federal Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37, 102 S.Ct. 38, 45, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981)), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199 (1985). HUD's post-litigation turnaround certainly displays no thorough analysis or consistency, and we see no need to defer to its new position.9 As the Supreme Court has noted, "[d]eference to what appears to be nothing more than an agency's con…