Document: 127 S. Ct. 1534 (2007) ZUNI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 et al., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION al. No. 05-1508. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 10, 2007. Decided April 17, *1537 Ronald J. Van Amberg, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioners. Sri Srinivasan, Washington, D.C., Federal Respondent. Leigh M. Manasevit, Santa, State VanAmberg, C. Bryant Rogers, Yepa & Abeita, LLP, Petitioner Zuni Public School District 89, George W. Kozeliski, Gallup, Gallup-McKinley County 1. Special Assistant Attorney General, the New Mexico, Jennifer Mauskapf, Brustein DC, Willie R. Brown, Mexico Education Department, Kent D. Talbert, General Counsel, Stephen H. Freid, Mark Smith, Department Education, Paul Clement, Peter Keisler, Edwin Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor to Robert Greenspan, Maier, Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. A federal statute sets forth a method that Secretary is use *1538 when determining whether State's public school funding program "equalizes expenditures" throughout State. The instructs calculate disparity in per-pupil expenditures among local districts But, doing so, "disregard" "with expenditures... above 95th percentile or below 5th such State." 20 U.S.C. § 7709(b)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). question before us emphasized statutory language permits identify should be "disregard[ed]" by looking number district's pupils as well size per pupil. We conclude it does. I Impact Aid Act, 108 Stat. 3749, amended, 7701 seq., provides financial assistance whose ability finance education adversely affected presence. aid available districts, example, where significant amount land exempt from property taxes, presence responsible an increase school-age children (say, armed forces personnel) whom schools must educate. See 7701. typically prohibits offsetting this reducing its own state district. If applied without exceptions, however, prohibition might unreasonably interfere with seeks equalize State, instance, preventing taking account source some receive. consequently contains exception compensate impact "the [of Education] determine[s] and certifies ... has effect equalizes free [school districts] 7709(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) out formula determine satisfies "equaliz[ation]" requirement. compare district greatest smallest see former exceeds latter more than 25 percent. So long does not, qualifies expenditures." More specifically "a aid" qualifies, i.e., if, "in second fiscal year preceding which determination made, made [the district] highest did not exceed lowest percent." 7709(b)(2)(A) ed.). provision goes on set what we shall call instruction. It states that, "making" "determination," "Secretary shall... disregard *1539 adds further: "take into extent reflects special additional costs bear they are] geographically isolated [or provide for] particular types students, disabilities." 7709(b)(2)(B)(ii). B This case requires decide Secretary's present calculation consistent statute's at issue contained regulations first promulgated 30 years ago. Those essentially following: When (thereby permitting reduce aid), will create list ranked order expenditure. then relevant cutoff point basis specific (95th 5th) student population essentially identifying those students 5 percent total lies both high low ends spending distribution. Finally remain satisfy requirement between them follows: "[D]eterminations current are by "(i) Ranking all pupil [in statutorily determined year]; "(ii) Identifying fall percentiles attendance [at taken together]; "(iii) Subtracting lower expenditure... figure higher identified paragraph (ii) dividing difference figure." 34 CFR pt. 222, subpt. K, App., ¶ 1 (2006) deleted). also illustration how perform calculation: "In X, after ranking [statutorily determined] question, ascertained counting ascending expenditure reached A] $820, B] $1,000. percentage 22 ($1000-$820 = $180/$820)." Ibid. Because less "25 percent" requirement, example C concerns Education's application Mexico's respect 2000. *1540 As require, officials listed each 1998. (The was performed, allows, revenues, rather expenditures. 7709(b)(2)(A). Appendix B, infra. For ease reference nevertheless refer, figures opinion, only "per-pupil expenditures.") After excluded 17 top because (cumulatively) population; same reason, 6 bottom list. remaining 66 accounted approximately 90 population. Of those, spent $3,259 student; $2,848 student. difference, $411, figure, namely $2,848. Hence, found therefore offset individual districts. Two (whom collectively Zuni), sought further agency review these findings. conceded Department's calculations were correct terms regulations. argued, themselves inconsistent authorizing statute. That statute, view, cutoffs solely (ranked their expenditures), any consideration calculated urges, 10 (accounting 2 students) would have been outliers disregard. result, (26.9 percent) Consequently, forbid take decides across N.M. Ann. 22-8-1 seq. (2006). Administrative Law Judge rejected Zuni's challenge same. decision Appeals Tenth Circuit. 393 F.3d 1158 (2004). Initially, Circuit panel affirmed split vote (2 1). Subsequently, full vacated panel's heard matter en banc. 12-member banc court but evenly divided (6 6). 437 1289 certiorari. agreed matter. II strongest argument rests upon literal concedes, must, if open ambiguousthat is, Congress left "gap" fillthen uphold interpretation reasonable. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., *1541 467 U.S. 837, 842-843, 104 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984). Christensen Harris County, 529 576, 589, 120 1655, 146 621, n. (SCALIA, J., concurring part judgment). purposes exposition, depart normal discussion, considers argument. Barnhart Sigmon Coal Co., 534 438, 450, 122 941, 151 908 (2002). Instead, technical nature examine provision's background basic purposes. discussion illuminate our subsequent analysis Part II-B, reveal why concentrates alone. Considerations other unusually strong indications intended leave chosen reasonable one. one thing, issuei.e., expenditures"is kind highly technical, specialized interstitial often itself, delegates agencies decide. States Mead Corp., 533 218, 234, 121 2164, 150 292 (2001); cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. American Telephone Telegraph 512 231, 114 2223, 129 182, (1994); Christensen, supra, n., 1655 (opinion SCALIA, J.). another history strongly supports Secretary. enacted "equalization" 1974. originally provided "ter[m]... `equalizing] expenditures' defined [Secretary]." 240(d)(2)(B) (1970 IV). Soon thereafter, 1976, regulation here defining term "equalizing manner now us. I-B, supra. far can tell, no Member ever criticized 1976 nor suggested time revised reconsidered. originated draft legislation himself sent 1994. With minor change (irrelevant controversy), adopted comment clarification. No timeno Congress, official, Stateexpressed view (which, all, supplied Secretary) system calculation, Nation had followed nearly years, (as told) adverse effect. Finally, viewed purpose instruction, reasonable, while reasonableness based alone (Zuni's proposed method) doubtful. (then Commissioner) considered he explained so. Initially pointed "exclusion upper accepted principle statistical evaluation usually represent unique noncharacteristic situations." 41 Fed.Reg. 26320 (1976) purpose, *1542 exclude outliers, evident uses "percentile"; refers numbers ("95th" "5th") associated scientific calculations; directly precedes tells middle "noncharacteristic" geography (such disabled students). §§ 7709(b)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). added under regulation's "percentiles" "determined districts." 26324. He said base "an exclusion districts" "would act apply standard unfair States." elaborated his concerns: "The eliminate anomalous characteristics distribution In small large measure substantial Conversely, approach insignificant fraction characteristics." To understand problem, consider exaggerated say 80 unequal size. Suppose 8 include urban areas together 70 72 primarily rural students. disparities (which looks ignores size) require system's largest (i.e., 80) even though (because contain pupils) typical of, indeed characterize, system. instead equality representative whole, accounting pupils. Thus, according method, certify there gross By way contrast, expenditures, avoid produce results so contrary objective. problem very case. vary significantly contains. nonetheless forbids discount districts10 (rounded up). But 1.8 eliminating pupils, risks resting few particularly extreme *1543 yet again intent. instruction indicate carries Congress' likely intent enacting language? important, normally neither legislative determinative plain unambiguously indicated foreclose interpretation. And argues could possibly effectuate since literally method. Under Court's precedents, clear expressed issue, end analysis. Chevron, U.S., 2778. customs imposes tariff "clothing" impose automobiles, policy arguments treating two kinds goods alike. disagree conclusion, believe falls within scope language. says compares (for specified year) by" (1) highest-per-pupil-expenditure (2) lowest-per-pupil-expenditure district, disregard" 7709(b)(2)(B)(i). word "such" (or precisely test statute). phrase "above of... [per pupil] noting (3) containing 95 Our answer phrase, absolute literalness, limits methods involve tell several different possible use. Nor rule formula, distributes accordance weighting reflect (e.g., "percentile") (eliminating uncharacteristic, outlier, districts), examined dictionary definitions "percentile." (Congress measurements "accepted evaluation" added)). make "percentile" division 100 parts. Webster's Third International Dictionary 1675 (1961) (Webster's Third) defines value variable marks boundary consecutive intervals population." economics gives similar definition "percentiles": *1544 values separating hundredth parts distribution, arranged 99th income level larger incomes." Black, Economics 348-349 (2d ed.2002). mathematics states: n-th xn/100 n cent equal xn/100." "[t]he modified, always satisfactorily, applicable discrete random sample order." Clapham Nicholson, Concise Oxford Mathematics 378-379 (3d ed.2005) Heritage Science 468 (2005) explains "[a]ny range data show values." Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk 612 (2002) describes scale hundred indicates it." These definitions, mainstream cutoffs, construct values. consist "population" characteristic. characteristic takes "value" member "percentile makes during year. specify "distributed" population's corresponding characteristic). various details constructed silence matters significant? Are populations, here, rank (and thereby ways "n [that] population" falls, cutoff)? experts statistics, statistician needed say. suggests single logical, mathematical, link between, hand, characterizing (used purposes) and, weighted cutoff. Here, distributed expenditure, compared usedas predecessors done quarter century himthe calculating percentiles. Another (a threatens problems ago identified, 26324; 1539-1540). third fourth *1545 using 26324 (considering calculation). fifth sometimes differences grade levels. 222.162(b)(1) (authorizing system); id., App. Each amounts adopt populationsstudents, schools, Yet, linguistically speaking, may attribute (though readily depending population, 26324). covers methods. Education), SCALIA's claim "defies semblance English" depends "per." word, dissent, "connotes . average assigned unit composite members pupils." Post, 1554 (dissenting opinion) omitted). fact, "per" simply means "[f]or each" "for every." Black's 1171 (8th ed.1999); 1674. nothing English considering instructed look remainder dissent's argument, colorful side, reading history. find evidence understanding fact statutes, clarified avoiding comparable ambiguity. education-related 20th enrollment, proficient level." 6311(b)(2)(E)(ii) fixing charges physicians services, maximum charge "shall 50th customary service (weighted frequency service) performed nonparticipating locality [prior] 12-month period." 42 1395u(j)(1)(C)(v) ed.) statutes greater specificity stating interest, (in first) second) weightings meaningful counterproductive results. used general (drafted himself), leaves authority resolve subsidiary administrative level. support circumstance *1546 "[a]mbiguity creature [just] definitional possibilities [also] context." Brown Gardner, 513 115, 118, 115 552, 130 462 (1994). FDA Williamson Tobacco 120, 132-133, 1291, (2000) ("[m]eaningor ambiguity of certain words phrases become placed context" technical. seems precise chess "you place queen next king," varies context, depending, instructor telling beginner up board advanced player checkmate opponent. acknowledges interpreting language, exercise matters, "quantile," "percentile," "quartile," "decile" "terms Mathematics, 379. "identify scholastic aptitude scores scores" distributed, context providing counseling low-performing students), unsuccessful learning protocols appropriate themselves). Context "of similarly ambiguous, concern Accordingly, consists just unweighted draw reassurance group statisticians, statistician, told briefs, indirectly through citation, cannot read it. significant, statisticians. views absence) help control of) mind. upshot broad enough permit reading. beyond hence permissible, implementation reasons II-A, lawful. judgment affirmed. ordered. APPENDIXES TO OPINION THE COURT provisions accompanying full. reader note text *1547 "local educational agencies." frequent references "revenues" do raise considerations germane Program, 7709 ed. (State payments aid): "(a) "Except subsection (b) section, not "(1) subchapter year "(A) eligibility education; "(B) aid; "(2) eligible payment receive eligible. "(b) equalization plans "A receives section 7702 7703(b) title (except excess 1.0 7703(a)(2)(B) 7703(b)(2) title, deemed 7703(b)(1) title) determines, (c)(3)(A) Computation "For (1), by, revenues to, Other factors making subsection, shall State; cost agencies, isolated, *1548 222.162 (What meet certified measured?): Percentage limitation. LEAs percentage, disregards appendix subpart. "(b)(1) Weighted groups. requests it, separate computations groups levels cases, groups, proportionate group, (a) section. "(c) Per computations. revenue following bases: LEA computed receiving agency. whatever measurement count (Methods Calculations Treatment Payments Equalization Programs): paragraphs describe conjunction determinations Except otherwise regulations, calculations. "1. Determinations compliance 222.162(b)(1). having determination; LEAs; figure. ..... cases 222.162(b), LEAs, obtained described *1549 above. Then whole Multiplying group; Summing (b)(i); Dividing sum (b)(ii) EXAMPLE Group (grades 1-6), 80,000 x 18% 14,400 7-12), 100,000 22% 22,000 3 1-12), 20,000 35% 7,000 Total 200,000 pupils...................... 43,400 43,400/200,000=21.70% Disparity " STEVENS, concurring. oft-cited Griffin Oceanic Contractors, 458 564, 571, 102 3245, 73 973 (1982), then-Justice Rehnquist wisely acknowledged rare result demonstrably odds intentions drafters, controlling." Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 235, 242, 109 1026, 103 290 (1989), began construction restating proposition "[i]n intention strict controls." SCALIA decisive majority Today correctly observes judicial departs "policy-driven interpretation." 1552 opinion). driving faithful (or, case, aims give intent)which override textthe performance function. today incorrect premise every policy-driven implements judge's personal sound policy, attempt carry legislature. Quite true work judges worked many years. presume intellectually honest dothere reason fear interpretation[s]" Acts Congress. 842, (1984), [from text], matter." quite "administrative constructions *1550 congressional intent" rejected. Id., 843, 9, unanimous explained: "If court, employing traditional tools construction, ascertains law given effect." Analysis course, tool construction.[1] There confine ourselves begin with, better issue. demonstrates, quintessential obviously administered enactment confusing ante, 1540-1541. sufficiently ambiguous justify exegesis, my product direct route patently conclusion. happens pellucidly difficult fathom.[2] Moreover, imagine anyone accusing voting Justice's preferences. Given clarity "intention issue," affirm thought petitioners' correct.[3] "policy" driven endorsed repeated occasions regarding importance KENNEDY, ALITO joins, courts appeals, Court, follow framework departure serve exposition. agency's determines "whether spoken issue." "that Only "Congress *1551 addressed issue" permissible statute." ambiguous. proper, therefore, invoke Chevron's deference. inverts logical progression. Were inversion systemic, impression concerns, shaping statutes. obligation good example; preferable, arrange differently. Still, deference author exposition; affect outcome, join opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS join, SOUTER joins I, dissenting. Church Holy Trinity States, 143 457, 12 511, 36 226 (1892), church's contracting prospective rector fell meaning labor church: "It familiar rule," pronounced, thing letter spirit, makers." 459, 511. judge-empowering one, since, retreated actions. arises, Phoenix-like, ashes. assertions aside, today's elevation judge-supposed over text. clearly forecloses preferred methodology school-funding equalized. Her selection entitled zero structure obvious clue afoot. purports premium 1543, roundabout tour "[c]onsiderations language," 1541 added)page page unenacted judicially perceived ante. shown "why alone," (impliedly shameful practice, least indication feeble case), informed preclude thinks best. ante (beginning "But important "). most suspicious proceeding, statements "We begin, always, statute," Duncan Walker, 167, 172, 2120, 251 (2001), replete affirmation "[g]iven [a] straightforward command, resort history," Gonzales, 520 1, *1552 6, 117 1032, 137 132 (1997). cart-before-the-horse justified excuse charged interpreting, things, Internal Revenue Code, Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974, Clean Air confronts time, never fit pronounce think meant say, counsel almost worries, "[w]ere inquiry] statutes." Ante, 1551 (KENNEDY, joined ALITO, concurring). True enough except wait distortion systemic concluding happening some, apparently fine. 1549-1550 (STEVENS, everyone else, let return Statutory Interpretation 101. do, See, e.g., 4, 1032. program, IV), distributing (referred agencies," "LEAs"[1]) 7709(a). "has determination: "[A] instructed, determination, she "disregard here. casual observer notice implementing much like (New 89) revenues. (1)(a)(i) good. critically "[i]dentif[y] LEAs." (1)(a)(ii) *1553 assessing 25% measure. (1)(a)(iii). concludes focus assuredly not. why, smokescreen lays down apologies inexperience endless recitation mathematical 1543-1544 ("`The xn/100.'" (quoting 378 ed.2005))). scary math problem; need hypothetical cadre number-crunching amici, 1546, guide way. dispute "`percentile' parts.'" 1543. revenues," to. (Secretary State" is: Whose revenues? Or, terminology, "characteristic" revenue"? 1544. At blush, twenty-second abundantly clear: agencies. with" figures. expenditur[e] revenu[e]" LEAsthere mention whatsoever. thus revenues" arrayed consisting Mexico) representing simple. little effort defend written. relying made-for-litigation theory bears relationship themselves, believes shoehorn says, "does `distributed' characteristic)." Thus finds revenue" "us[e] percentiles." interpretation, manages explain straight face, 317,777 [S]tate [S]tate." Brief Respondent 37; ("Each a[S]tate treated *1554 her `per-pupil' amount"). "linguistically [student]." 1545. sheer applesauce obvious. course causes produces either enjoys revenues) expenditures). defies usage revenue." connotes mentioned agency.[2] irrelevant "[n]o [per-pupil revenues] 1544-1545. unambiguously: revenues." shows utter irrelevance excursus mean "`for `for every'" and clause reads refer to) every" LEA. violence severe actual (guess what) computing LEA! brief explains: number. actually pupil, impossible roughly expended LEA." 36. assigns artificial corresponds exactly LEA's revenue. words, day herself pertains (an attributable student), suggest LEA). proceeds step permitted *1555 formulain applying (this fanciful "per-pupil") reach desires. once, arraying entire collapse. Students LEA, appearing located points spectrum. serious excluding perhaps them) calculation. render meaningless. final rescue appealing "statutory "Context us," `per-pupil `of 1546. complete non sequitur. dealing funding. whether, reasonably irrational dispositions regard entities regulates (here LEAs) rendered sub-units ultimate beneficiaries Such interpretationif called thatwould inject indeed. reliance puzzling favors petitioners. statute] 1158, 1172 (C.A.10 2004) (O'Brien, dissenting), vacated, 1289, 1290 (en banc) (per curiam). slightest sensible predictable, program's designed address (referring agencies"); 7709(d)(1). Indeed, LEAs. sum, compels conclusion ultra vires. Employing requires, 1540. How then, clear, respondents managing win case? miraculous redeemer lost causes, Trinity. contort recognition, Congress's crystalline, spirit glowingly bright, says. STEVENS candid point: willing contradict *1556 (concurring opinion).[3] STEVENS' candor philosophy seem unassuming. maintains function" "override text" "is Congress." 1549. once "strict (by text) fidelity chancy thing. know Houses President, signed legislation) Legislative "pellucidly clear" picture, 1550 concurring), "intended" mean, simple voted uponor ordinarily seen heardby "intending" lawgiving entity, President (if veto bill). Const., Art. 7. "meant" (apart disturbing entirely unsurprising tendency meant, meant. Trinity, disregarded forbade hiring clergyman abroad because, (they thought), "this Christian nation," 471, said. Is Justices lacking "intellectua[l] honest[y]" "presume[s]" possess, 1550? Intellectual honesty blinding intellectual bias. did, amendatory texts duly resemblance lawmaking Constitution. comfort "cannot preferences." 1550. begins lengthy description approves assuming Justices' bad law, rarities. Why suppose arouse libidovoting rights, antidiscrimination laws, environmental protection, name fewa judge Textual Subversion convenient (yea, righteous!) assume said, knows best? Lest confusion point, discuss briefly puts forward, 1549, demonstrating recent *1557 endorsement unorthodox views. They demonstrate opposite. involved maritime required master vessel furnish unpaid wages seaman period seaman's discharge, who failed sufficient cause "`shall pay days' delayed.'" 570, 3245 46 596 (1976 ed.)). says," 574, held double delayed, alternative employment. $300,000 master's improper withholding $412.50, 575, "[i]t [was] probably envision grossness difference. withheld award 3245. dicta "rare cas[e]" relax steadfastness text, itself qualify, hard would. ascribe advocated dissent. "[T]his dictates will." 586, dissenting). relies upon, equally inapt. (unlike here) "must itself," concluded "also inquiry end, plain, `the sole function enforce terms.'" 241, 1026 Caminetti 242 470, 485, 37 192, 61 442 (1917)). My "fifth vote" "decisive," 1549 reaffirming adherence decisively falling off precipice plunges today. Contrary sure Legislature trump Citizens affairs legislators' unexpressed intent, written promulgated. terribly expect petitioners pored regulatory divine "real" objective honest true). governed legislated Government men." last opposite beneficial governors governed. "depriving legislators assurance ordinary terms, predictable meaning," deprive people's Chisom Roemer, 501 380, 417, 111 2354, 348 (1991) *1558 purport amended indulging erroneous exists "legislative apart opinion), confidence, wished another. ample evidence, knew incorporate Most prominently, established Finance Incentive known EFIG. Improving America's Schools 1994, 3575. allocates grants "equity factor" 6337(b)(1)(A) EFIG, account: "[T]he weigh variation served agency." 6337(b)(3)(A)(ii)(II) added); 28-29. more. expressly accorded favorable rating equalized 6337(b)(3)(B) explicitly incorporated itself. All day. significance legislator 1994 upend formula. (majority plausibleindeed, eminently plausiblethat Members took previously doing. materials resolving ambiguity, truly unreasonable extratextual precondition enforcing unambiguous mandate. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Nigh, 543 50, 73-74, 125 460, 160 389 (2004) "no [Secretary's] regulation[s] forth." 1541. really turns, freshman Congressman gave floor speech late-night C-SPAN junkies witness? fair inference talking. expresses belief pre-1994 able ones. 1541-1543. This, truth, core suggested, accident countertextual perceive invariably accords me, capable saying certainty *1559 best area intended. concernedin limited added) eliminates too certification 23 26%. expert desirability four consideration? about discrepancy apparent confidence adequately problem? Immediately setting 7709(b)(2)(B)(i), Respondents 7709(b)(2)(B)(ii) temper unintended effects maintain advantage subdividing again, remedy. 7713(9)(B)(ii), `local agency' case-by-case constituted reconstituted legitimate purposes." * enacted; two, demands prevail. live exemplar crystal-clear interpret wish be. reverse Appeals. SOUTER, agree intended, understood, continue devised prior passage 1554-1555. inapt authorize methodology, dissenting NOTES [1] Wisconsin Intervenor Mortier, 597, 610, 2476, 532 (1991); Steelworkers Weber, 443 193, 230-253, 99 2721, 480 (1979) (Rehnquist, [2] "without clarification," relied sponsors, introduced "on behalf administration," 139 Cong. Rec. 23416 (1993) (remarks Sen. Kennedy) 23514 Jeffords), drafted parsing obscure regardless language's supposed clarity, competent challenging validity presumptively valid filing suit. [3] (1892) ("It rule, makers"). replaced "`local agencies'" districts.'" 1547. While objection agencies" "LEAs." attributed Standing abstracted rest may. appears (Emphasis added.) establish speaking sense (it not). Like aboveboard litigated hearing (ALJ) protested: don't 29. responded: purpose." Later hearing, ALJ asked answered: "Literally, face not." 53. Despite misgivings, ultimately decided possess invalidate Pet. Cert. 38a, 51a.

Category: 8