United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 16, 2019 Decided August 20, 2019 No. 18-5154 AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE v. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION, APPELLANT Consolidated with 18-5181 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:16-cv-02394) Daniel Aguilar, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for Appellant-Cross-Appellee. With him on the briefs was Mark B. Stern, Attorney. Allison Jones Rushing was on the brief for amici curiae Credit Union National Association, et al. in support of Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Nicholas G. Gamse entered an appearance. 2 Steven D. Gordon was on the brief for amici curiae State Bankers Associations in support Appellee-Cross-Appellant American Bankers Association. Robert A. Long Jr. argued the cause for Appellee-Cross- Appellant. With him on the briefs were Andrew J. Soukup, Philip Levitz, and Lauren Moxley. Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS. WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Longstanding principles of administrative law teach us to give federal agencies breathing room when they make policy and “resolv[e] the struggle between competing views of the public interest.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984). And because many policy decisions merge with legal ones, Chevron requires us frequently to sustain agency interpretations of certain federal statutes. Congress often expects agencies, with their political accountability, “bod[ies] of experience[,] and informed judgment,” to make sound interpretive choices “with the force of law.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 227, 229 (2001) (citation omitted). Congress expressly tasked the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) with making such choices in defining the reach of federal credit unions. Since the Great Depression, Congress has maintained a “system of federal credit unions that . . . provide credit at reasonable rates” and banking services to “people of ‘small means.’” First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. v. NCUA (First Nat’l Bank I), 988 F.2d 1272, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), aff’d, 522 U.S. 479 (1998). Although a private bank may solicit and welcome customers 3 from anywhere, Congress has limited whom these federal financial institutions may serve. For instance, certain institutions called “community credit unions” may cover individuals and entities only within a preapproved geographical area. The credit union will not receive a federal charter (and thus cannot start operations) unless it first proffers a geographical coverage area and the NCUA accepts the proposal. Congress explicitly assigns the agency the task of creating vetting standards. Exercising its expressly delegated power, the NCUA has promulgated a final rule that makes it easier for community credit unions to expand their geographical coverage and thus to reach more potential members. Representing competitors to the credit unions, the American Bankers Association (Association) has challenged the NCUA’s new rule as neither “in accordance with law” nor within “statutory jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). The District Court vacated significant portions of the rule, deeming them to be based on unreasonable agency interpretations of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals