United States Supreme Court Decides that Customs Rulings are not Entitled to "Chevron" Deference

June 2001

In an 8-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court decided in United States v. Mead Corp. that Customs rulings are not entitled to "Chevron" deference, although they are eligible for "respect according to its persuasiveness" under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). This was true for several reasons, above and beyond the fact that Customs letter rulings are not subject to notice-and-comment procedures. Instead, the Supreme Court found that Congress had not expressed its intent to allow Customs to issue ruling letters which had the force of law. This lack of congressional intent was reflected in the fact that the Court of International Trade is specifically granted independent powers of review over case challenging Customs rulings, and the fact that roughly 10,000 ruling letters per year are issued from 46 offices. The Court took these factors to indicate that Customs ruling letters are more appropriately treated as "interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines."

It is important to note that while the Court declined to give Chevron deference to Customs letter rulings, it did indicate that courts should review Customs letter rulings in light of Skidmore. Skidmore indicated that an agency's interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the "specialized experience and broader investigations and information" available to the agency. While this standard does not reflect a clear level of deference which courts should give to Customs letter rulings, it is clear that the courts cannot simply ignore the ruling under Mead.