545 U.S. 967 (2005)
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services is a cornerstone of administrative law and modern communications regulation.
When a court has previously interpreted a statute, may a later, contrary agency interpretation still receive Chevron deference, and, specifically, was the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an "information service" a permissible construction of the Communications Act?
Brand X establishes that a prior judicial construction of a statute controls over a later agency interpretation only if the court's earlier decision held that the statute was unambiguous and left no room for agency discretion. Otherwise, under Chevron, courts must defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision, even if a court previously reached a different interpretation. Applying Chevron's two-step framework, if (1) Congress's intent is clear, that is the end of the matter; but if (2) the statute is ambiguous, a court must uphold the agency's interpretation so long as it is reasonable and within the scope of delegated authority.
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. A circuit court's prior statutory interpretation does not bar a later, reasonable agency construction unless the prior decision declared the statute unambiguous. The Communications Act's definitions were ambiguous as applied to cable modem service, and the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an "information service" was a permissible, reasonable interpretation entitled to deference.
Doctrinally, Brand X crystallized the interaction between stare decisis and Chevron deference. It held that a later, reasonable agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute could displace a prior circuit court view, unless the earlier court had held the statute unambiguous. For nearly two decades, this "Brand X rule" governed how lower courts reconciled circuit precedent with evolving agency interpretations. Regulatorily, Brand X enabled the FCC's initial refusal to impose Title II common-carrier obligations on cable broadband, shaping the early net neutrality landscape and supporting later "classification toggles" (e.g., reclassifying broadband to and from Title II) as policy shifted. It became a staple in administrative law courses and communications law practice because it emphasized how ambiguity, reasonableness, and agency expertise could steer statutory meaning over time. Important update: In 2024, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference (see Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case). That change significantly curtails Brand X's deference holding: courts no longer defer to reasonable agency interpretations simply because a statute is ambiguous. As a result, Brand X's central rule about displacing prior judicial constructions has been superseded. Nonetheless, Brand X remains historically important for understanding the Chevron era, the limits on agency power when a statute is unambiguous or a Supreme Court decision controls, and the communications-law context of information versus telecommunications services.