Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
No, but over the years I have noticed that in an effort to provide an overview of something things sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Or it could be it describes it perfectly. No way to know without looking at the case itself.
|
I agree. The opinion does not yet appear to be posted on the dc district court website.
From a quick loot at RT's Mead cite, I now can see how the description in the article would be consistent with an application of Mead to the FTC's letter or whatever it was. Although it strikes me as odd that a purely legal interpretation of a statute should be subject to some sort of notice and comment requirement to be given deference. It's a bit different from some health statute where the determination of "best available" (for example) may require some science.
