the integration regulation. See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, No. 3:12-CV-059, ECF No. 2-2 (E.D. Va., settlement agreement filed Jan. 26, 2012); United States v. Delaware, No. 11-CV-591, ECF Nos. 6-7, (D. Del., settlement agreement entered Jul 18, 2011); United States v. Georgia, No. 1:10-CV-249-CAP, ECF Nos. 112, 115 (N.D. Ga., settlement agreement entered as modified Nov. 1, 2010). Judicial Deference Afforded to the Department of Justice Regarding the Integration Regulation________________ As the agency directed by Congress with issuing regulations under Title II, the Department of regulations are to Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. Justice’s “entitled deference.” 624, 646 (1998); see also Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 597-98 the Department is the agency (“Because directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II views … its warrant respect.”). interpretation of its own regulation is unless plainly erroneous or An agency’s “controlling inconsistent with the Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997); Barden, 292 F.3d regulation.” at 1077. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed this principle in M.R. v. Dreyfus by strongly deferring to the Department of interpretation of the integration regulation as stated in a Justice’s Statement of Interest brief filed with the district court, holding that afford “[w]e DOJ’s view considerable respect. We also defer to an reasonable interpretation of its own … agency’s statutorily authorized 663 F.3d at 1117 (citations omitted). regulations.” The Department of Interpretation of the Integration Justice’s Regulation is Reasonable and Should be Upheld___________
the integration regulation. See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, No. 3:12-CV-059, ECF No. 2-2 (E.D. Va., settlement agreement filed Jan. 26, 2012); United States v. Delaware, No. 11-CV-591, ECF Nos. 6-7, (D. Del., settlement agreement entered Jul 18, 2011); United States v. Georgia, No. 1:10-CV-249-CAP, ECF Nos. 112, 115 (N.D. Ga., settlement agreement entered as modified Nov. 1, 2010). Judicial Deference Afforded to the Department of Justice Regarding the Integration Regulation________________ As the agency directed by Congress with issuing regulations under Title II, the Department of Justice’s regulations are “entitled to deference.” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 646 (1998); see also Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 597-98 (“Because the Department is the agency directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II … its views warrant respect.”). An agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997); Barden, 292 F.3d at 1077. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed this principle in M.R. v. Dreyfus by strongly deferring to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the integration regulation as stated in a Statement of Interest brief filed with the district court, holding that “[w]e afford DOJ’s view considerable respect. … We also defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own statutorily authorized regulations.” 663 F.3d at 1117 (citations omitted). The Department of Justice’s Interpretation of the Integration Regulation is Reasonable and Should be Upheld___________