Court Opinion

ID: 9851018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:05:48.121977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.999479
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The question raised here is: “When is a farm not a farm?” Relying on an administrative bulletin, the majority answers, “When it’s a tree farm.” The interpretation in that bulletin is directly at odds with the act’s definition of agriculture as “farming in all its branches” including, among other things, “the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities * * (Emphasis supplied.) 29 USC § 203(f). The court need not *527defer to an administrative interpretation that provides no explanation for its departure from the clear statutory language. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 US 134, 140, 65 S Ct 161, 89 L Ed 124 (1944). In doing so, the majority fails in its “independent responsibility of applying ad hoc the general terms of the statute * * Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 US 517, 523, 62 S Ct 1116, 86 L Ed 1638 (1942). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.