Connection lost
Server error
UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Court held that informal agency interpretations, like Customs tariff ruling letters, do not receive mandatory Chevron deference. Instead, they are evaluated under the less deferential Skidmore standard, which considers the interpretation’s power to persuade.
Legal Significance: Established a two-step framework for judicial deference, limiting mandatory Chevron deference to agency interpretations made with the “force of law” and revitalizing the flexible Skidmore standard for less formal agency actions.
UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The U.S. Customs Service issues thousands of “ruling letters” annually from 46 different offices to classify imported goods for tariff purposes. These letters are not subject to formal notice-and-comment rulemaking or adjudication. They are binding only on the specific importer and transaction, and other importers are warned not to rely on them. After initially classifying Mead Corporation’s “day planners” as duty-free, Customs issued a new headquarters ruling letter reclassifying them as “diaries,” which were subject to a tariff. The letter provided a detailed rationale for its interpretation of the terms “diary” and “bound” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Mead challenged this reclassification, arguing the agency’s interpretation was incorrect. The government contended that the ruling letter was entitled to judicial deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a tariff classification ruling issued by the U.S. Customs Service, which is not the product of formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for the judicial deference articulated in Chevron?
No. The Customs ruling letter is not entitled to Chevron deference because Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a tariff classification ruling issued by the U.S. Customs Service, which is not the product of formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for the judicial deference articulated in Chevron?
Conclusion
This case significantly narrowed the applicability of *Chevron* deference, establishing that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Rule
An agency interpretation of a statutory provision qualifies for *Chevron* deference only Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex
Legal Analysis
The Court refined the doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretations, creating Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat n
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Agency interpretations receive Chevron deference only when Congress delegates authority to