| McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided June 20, 2025 | |
| Full case name | McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. |
| Docket no. | 23-1226 |
| Citations | 606U.S. 146 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| Hobbs Act | |
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.,606 U.S. 146 (2025), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the court held that theHobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.[1][2] At issue in the case was the interpretation of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by theFederal Communications Commission.[3]
This article incorporates written opinion of aUnited States federal court. As awork of theU.S. federal government, the text is in thepublic domain.
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRoberts Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |