{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-16", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:20376f", "proof": "sha256:1adb6c21d1c01b0fd1e3298da473c252ba75026b02482d88ac4187a160f0e091", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.]", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "MIDDLE DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "LUTHERAN HOME AT KANE AND", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "SIEMON'S LAKEVIEW MANOR ESTATE", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "APPEAL OF: LUTHERAN HOME AT KANE", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "AND SIEMON'S LAKEVIEW MANOR", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "ESTATE, SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "RHEEMS NURSING & REHABILITATION", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "CENTER, ELLEN MEMORIAL HEALTH", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "CARE CENTER, AND ELIZABETHTOWN", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "NURSING AND REHAB CENTER", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "No. 7 MAP 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Appeal from the Order of the", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Commonwealth Court at No. 303", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "CD 2023 dated June 4, 2024,", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Affirming the Decision of the", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Department of Human Services,", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Bureau of Hearings and Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "at Nos. 090-08-0113, 090-08-", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "0130, 090-08-0134, 090-08-0157,", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "090-08-0158, 090-08-0159, 090-", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "08-0164, 090-08-0170, 090-08-", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "0174, 090-08-0176, 090-08-0186,", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "090-08-0187, 090-08-0188, 090-", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "08-0192, 090-08-0193, 090-08-", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "0200 and 090-08-0213 dated", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "March 1, 2023", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "ARGUED: November 20, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: October 1, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "I agree with the result reached by the learned Majority based on its thorough", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "interpretation of the text of 55 Pa. Code §1187.91(1)(iv) (the “Regulation”).1 It correctly", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "identifies an ambiguity in the Regulation which is designed to, among other things, set", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "1 The provision states, in relevant part:", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "(iv) Prior to price setting, cost report information will be indexed", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "forward to the 6th month of the 12-month period for which the prices", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "are set. The index used is the 1st Quarter issue of the CMS Nursing", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Home Without Capital Market Basket Index.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "55 Pa. Code § 1187.91(1)(iv).", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 2", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "forth the calculation of medical assistance reimbursement rates for long-term care skilled", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "nursing facilities to include an inflation factor. “Cost report information” as used in the", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "Regulation is an undefined term capable of at least two reasonable interpretations and,", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "as such, it is ambiguous. A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 143 A.3d 896, 905-06 (Pa.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "2016). Applying the Statutory Construction Act2 to discern the meaning of the term,", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Majority Op. at 6-61, the Majority concludes that “cost report information” as used in the", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "Regulation reflects year end totals reported by the providers. Id. at 55. As a result, the", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Majority holds that the Department’s interpretation of the Regulation is correct. Id. at 61.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "I depart from the Majority because despite its recognition that the Statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Construction Act must be used to interpret administrative rules,3 the Majority insists that", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "there continues to be a role for deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "its own regulation and that our precedent requiring agency deference is not inconsistent", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "with application of the Statutory Construction Act because the two can be harmonized.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Id. at 42-43 n.26. So here, the Majority states that “because our application of the SCA", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "provides the answer, there is no need to turn to deference principles.” Id. at 61", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "(emphasis added). Since the Majority makes clear its view that deference principles must", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "remain a part of our jurisprudence, I can only read this statement to mean that if a", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "regulation remains ambiguous after application of all of the tools in the Statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Construction Act, then deference is to be afforded to the agency’s interpretation of its own", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "regulation.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "If I am correct in my reading of the Majority opinion, this treatment of the role for", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is strikingly similar to the role", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "for such deference announced by consensus of the majority in Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "2 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501-1991 (“Statutory Construction Act” or “SCA”).", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "3 Id. at 44.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 3", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "558 (2019). Kisor requires that deference not be afforded to the agency interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "unless the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. Id. at 574. So it seems does the Majority.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "The Majority declines to adopt Kisor’s framework because it “does not translate", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "onto Pennsylvania’s method for interpreting the text of regulations which [ ] is provided by", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "the General Assembly in the SCA.” Majority Op. at 38. The Majority recognizes that the", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Kisor method for determining genuine ambiguity is incompatible because it requires a", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "court, before considering the agency interpretation, “to exhaust all the traditional tools of", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "construction.” Majority Op. at 41 (quoting Kisor, 588 U.S. 574-75) (“To make that effort,", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "a court must carefully consider the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation, in", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "all ways it would if it had no agency to fall back on.”) (emphasis added). Because", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Section 1921(c)(8) of our Statutory Construction Act makes consideration of the agency’s", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "interpretation a tool to discern the meaning of a regulation and that treatment is not", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "equivalent to Auer deference,4 it plays an earlier role in interpretating an ambiguous", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "regulation. Id. This rejection of Kisor and the reason for doing so is right on the money.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "However, the Majority’s conclusions in this regard are irreconcilable with its later", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "suggestion that when all of tools of statutory construction fail, the fallback is to give", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "deference to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. Id. at 61.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Section 1921(c) of the Statutory Construction Act, which delineates interpretive", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "rules to discern the intent of the legislature when a statute is ambiguous, is equally", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "applicable to discerning the intent of the drafters of ambiguous administrative regulations.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "1 Pa.C.S. § 1502(a)(1)(ii); 1 Pa. Code § 1.7. The Statutory Construction Act offers eight", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "points of analysis for discerning the intent of the drafters5 and, as noted by the Majority,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "4 Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997).", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "5 According to the Statutory Construction Act,", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "(continued…)", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 4", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "the factors are not prioritized one over another. Majority Op. at 40. One of the factors to", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "be considered is the “administrative interpretations of such [regulation.]” 1 Pa.C.S. §", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "1921(c)(8), 1502(a)(1)(ii).", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "Contrary to the Majority’s view, the Statutory Construction Act and agency", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "deference cannot be harmonized. The insistence on shoehorning the two-step analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "articulated in Tire Jockey6 into regulatory interpretation under the Statutory Construction", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Act7 lies at the heart of my disagreement with the Majority because it continues to embed", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "agency deference in our judicial function of interpreting the law expressed in agency", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "regulations.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "The Majority recognizes that regulatory interpretation presents a question of law", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "for which our review is plenary and de novo but, in contradiction, insists on conducting", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "that review in the context of the two-part analysis’ articulated in Tire Jockey: (1) whether", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "the interpretation of the regulation is erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, and", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "(c) When the words of the statute are not explicit, the intention", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering,", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "among other matters:", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "(1) The occasion and necessity for the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "(2) The circumstances under which it was enacted.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "(3) The mischief to be remedied.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "(4) The object to be attained.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "(5) The former law, if any, including other statutes upon", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "the same or similar subjects.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "(6) The consequences of a particular interpretation.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "(7) The contemporaneous legislative history.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "such statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c).", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "6 Tire Jockey Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 915 A.2d 1165, 1186 (Pa. 2007).", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "7 Majority Op. at 42-43 n.26.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 5", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "(2) whether the regulation is consistent with statute under which it was promulgated.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Majority Op. at 42-43 (internal citations omitted). According to the Majority, in addressing", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "the first factor, the only one at issue in this case, courts are to use the process mandated", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "by the Statutory Construction Act and specifically Section 1921(c) where the language is", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "ambiguous. Majority Op. at 43. This means that the focus of the interpretative process", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "is the agency’s interpretation, not the regulation itself. In support of this proposition, the", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Majority relies on Corman v. Acting Secretary of Pennsylvania, Department of Health, 266", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "A.3d 452 (Pa. 2021), and S & H Transport Inc. v. City of York, 210 A.3d 1028 (Pa. 2019).", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "However, both of these cases simply stand for the proposition that the Statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Construction Act is used to construe the terms of an ambiguous administrative regulation.", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "Obviously, the focus of the analysis is not on the agency’s interpretation of a regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "since that is one of the factors considered in discerning the drafter’s intent in the Section", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "1921(c) analysis. Our role is to determine the meaning of the text of the regulation.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "The Majority’s ability to discern the meaning of the text of the regulation without", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "resort to deference principles highlights the problem with the Majority’s insistence on", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "maintaining deference to an agency as part of our jurisprudence in interpreting", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "regulations. The Majority is forced to create a role for deference in some type of case", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "and implies that it comes into play where the application of the Statutory Construction Act", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "fails to give meaning to a regulation. In other words, when the agency’s interpretation of", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "its regulation as one of the interpretive factors under Section 1921(c)(8) does not shed", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "light on the intent of the agency in promulgating the regulation so as to assist in", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "interpreting the text of the regulation, the court should then elevate the agency’s", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "interpretation by giving it deference in saying what the regulation means. This is", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "nonsensical and contrary to our established law when encountering indecipherable", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 6", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "language after engaging in the interpretation process.8 The Statutory Construction Act", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "and deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation cannot be harmonized", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "because to do so requires elevating an agency’s interpretation to an outcome", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "determinative status in the interpretive process in contravention of the Statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "Construction Act which gives no such status to an agency’s interpretation.", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "This Court’s opinion in Department of Public Welfare v. Forbes Health System, 422", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "A.2d 480 (Pa. 1980), where we decided to follow the lead of the United States Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "8 The Statutory Construction Act does not speak to a situation where the tools of", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "construction fail, but we have. When a statute, or by extension, a regulation involves", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "enforcement under the criminal law, it will be found unconstitutional if it’s “so vague that", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "application.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 938 A.2d 198, 207 (Pa. 2007) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Commonwealth v. Cotto, 753 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa. 2000)). The doctrine is premised on", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "“due process notions that a statute must provide reasonable standards by which a person", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "may gauge his future conduct, i.e., notice and warning.” Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 874", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "A.2d 623, 628 (Pa. 2005) (citing Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572 (1974)). A void-for-", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "vagueness challenge flows from both the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Commonwealth v. Barud,", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "681 A.2d 162, 163 (Pa. 1996).", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "More generally, the Court has articulated the following general principle with regard to", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "indiscernible statutory language: “Where a statute is ‘so vague, indefinite, and uncertain", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "that the courts are unable to determine, with any reasonable degree of certainty what the", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "Legislature intended, or is so incomplete or conflicting and inconsistent in its provisions", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "that it cannot be executed, it will be declared inoperative.’” Willcox v. Penn Mut. Life Ins.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "Co., 55 A.2d 521, 528 (Pa. 1947) (quoting Miller v. Belmont Packing & Rubber Co., 268", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "Pa. 51, 63, 110 A. 802, 806 (Pa. 1920)). In Wilcox, the Court attempted to interpret the", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "Community Property Law of 1947 but concluded that the Law was inoperative and void", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "because the Court could not rationally derive meaning from the terms of the Law. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "531 (“It follows, therefore, that the Community Property Law is not only vague, indefinite", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "and uncertain but so incomplete, conflicting and inconsistent in its provisions that it is", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "incapable either of rational interpretation or of judicial enforcement and consequently,", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "under the principle previously referred to, it must be held to be inoperative and void.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "Wilcox was decided under the Statutory Construction Act of 1937, which was later", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "repealed and replaced with the current Act in 1972. However, the factors for resolving", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "ambiguity in the 1937 Act were the same as the factors currently set forth in the Act. See", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "Clearfield Borough v. Clearfield Borough Park Auth., 285 A.2d 532, 534 (Pa. Commw.", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "1971), aff’d, 301 A.2d 372 (Pa. 1973) (citing 46 P.S. § 551).", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 7", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Court in affording deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "regulation was a late coming and unexplained departure from our prior adherence to the", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "application of the Statutory Construction Act for such interpretations. As reported by the", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Majority, deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations is", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "commonly traced back to the United State Supreme Court’s 1945 decision in Bowles v.", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "Seminole Rock & Sand Co.9 Majority Op. at 16. It took thirty-five years for this Court to", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "reference Seminole Rock and, without any articulated reason, it adopted its holding as", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "enunciated in United States v. Larinoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872 (1977).10", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "In contrast, in 1979, one year prior to Forbes, this Court, without reference to", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "agency deference, decided Department of Environmental Resources v. Locust Point", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Quarries, 396 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1979), a case involving the interpretation of a Department", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "of Environmental Resources regulation relating to fugitive air emissions under the Air", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Pollution Control Act. Instead, this Court relied on the Statutory Construction Act in its", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "interpretative analysis noting its application to regulations codified in the Pennsylvania", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "9 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) (explaining that when", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "interpreting an administrative regulation, “the ultimate criterion is the administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "agency’s interpretation which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "or inconsistent with the regulation”).", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "10 The Forbes Court held:", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "In reviewing an administrative agency’s interpretation of its", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "own regulations, courts are governed by a two-step analysis.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "First, “[i]n considering administrative regulations, ‘the ultimate", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "with the regulation.’” [Larinoff, 431 U.S. at 872 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Seminole Rock, 325 U.S. at 414)]. Second, the regulations", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "“must be consistent with the statute under which they are", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "promulgated.” Id. at 873. See also, Commonwealth v. Beck", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "Electric Constr[.], Inc., 403 A.2d 553 (Pa. 1979).", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "Forbes, 422 A.2d at 482. This is the two-step analysis repeated in Tire Jockey.", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 8", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Code. Id. at 1208 & n.8. This Court considered the Agency’s interpretation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "regulation but did not elevate it in the interpretative process. Id. at 1209-10.11 As for our", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "current regime, the Majority recognizes that in recent cases, this Court has stressed the", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "point that courts are the ultimate arbiters of what a regulation means and that we use the", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "Statutory Construction Act to guide our analysis. Majority Op. at 31 (collecting cases).", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "This is precisely the interpretive framework we used prior to Forbes as reflected in Locust", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Point Quarries.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "And yet today, in a case where the ambiguity in the Regulation was resolved", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "without affording any deference to the agency’s interpretation of it, the Majority, hellbent", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "on salvaging agency deference, implies that deference is due an agency’s interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "when the meaning of a regulation cannot be determined using the Statutory Construction", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Act. The Majority Opinion, like all of our precedents upon which it relies, does not answer", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "the core question of why deference should be afforded to the agency’s interpretation of", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "an ambiguous (or hopelessly ambiguous) regulation. If one accepts the fundamental", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "proposition that it is the obligation of the courts to declare the meaning of laws,12 there is", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "11 The Locust Point Quarries’ Court distinguished a challenge to the reasonableness of", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "the regulation. Noting that regulations implementing the Air Pollution Control Act are", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "promulgated pursuant to a grant of legislative power, the Court explained that they enjoy", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "a presumption of reasonableness such that courts refuse to substitute their own judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "for that of agencies possessing technical expertise absent a showing that the agency", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "arbitrarily and unreasonably exercised the police power. Locust Point Quarries, 396 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "at 1210. To prevail in such a challenge, it required establishing that the regulation at", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "issue was not related to the objective of the Air Pollution Control Act, a burden not", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "undertaken by the challenger.", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "12 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province and duty", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "of the judicial department to say what the law is.”); Hubley’s Lessee v. White, 2 Yeates", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "133, 146 (Pa. 1796) (“We cheerfully disclaim all legislative power; but it will not be denied", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "that we possess the right of putting such construction on the acts of the legislature, as", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "appears to us best to accord with their intention, either express or implied. We cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "construe a law differently from the plain clear words of it, under any ideas of convenience", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "or equity.”) (internal citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 9", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "no role for deference to the interpretation of the law by an administrative agency.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Deference is antithetical to our responsibility to resolve the ambiguity in the language and", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "declare what the text means.", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "It is clear that our deference jurisprudence is derived from United States Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "Court precedent so one would think that our extension of deference to administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "interpretations is for the same reasons as the federal high court. Justice Kagan, in her", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "opinion in Kisor, clearly articulated the source of Seminole Rock/Auer deference: it is", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "rooted in a presumption about congressional intent—a presumption that Congress would", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "generally want the agency to play the primary role in resolving regulatory ambiguities. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "at 569. Of course, this cannot be this Court’s basis for extending deference to an", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. We cannot make such a presumption", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "because our General Assembly has explicitly enunciated rules for construing agency", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "regulations and deference to an agency’s interpretation is not one of them. In fact, it is", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "no more persuasive than a variety of other factors articulated in Section 1921(c).", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Deference means respect due a superior or elder, “respectful submission or", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another[,]” “respect shown for another", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "person, esp[ecially] because of that person’s experience, knowledge, age or power[.]”13", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "There is obviously no place for deference when a court engages in deciding, as a matter", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "of law, what a regulation means. Our review is de novo and plenary. And while agencies,", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "by definition, are subject matter experts, the subject matter of agency expertise is not in", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "the interpretation of the law as codified. This is the expertise of courts, and it is our", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "obligation to apply it in the interpretive process.", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "13 Deference, MERRIAM WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "webster.com/dictionary/deference (last visited July 21, 2026); Deference,", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "DICTIONARY.COM, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deference (last visited July 21,", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "2026); Deference, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY,", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deference (last visited July 21, 2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "[J-99-2025] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 10", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "As for the role for deference as envisioned by the Majority, I am not aware of any", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "case in which we were unable to discern the meaning of the text of a regulation after", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "employing the Statutory Construction Act and the Majority does not cite to any. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "in the rare instance where this might occur, it is our obligation to declare the regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "void for vagueness or unenforceable.14 If the Majority is correct that in such an instance", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "we defer to the agency’s interpretation, it is inviting agencies to write incomprehensible", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "regulations because its interpretation will ultimately prevail.", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "For these reasons, I would take this opportunity to dispel the notion that an", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is owed any deference in discerning the", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "meaning of the regulation. Thus, while I agree with the result reached by the Majority, I", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "dissent from its suggestion that courts should give deference to an agency’s interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "of its own regulations.15", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "14 See supra note 8.", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "15 The Majority affirms the decision of the Commonwealth Court and states that it does", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "so for “slightly different reasons.” Majority Op. at 2. It is worth noting that the", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Commonwealth Court’s opinion does not mention the Statutory Construction Act. It does", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "not pretend to interpret the language of the regulation. Once concluding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "regulation was ambiguous, it held that the Department’s interpretation was entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "Auer deference. Lutheran Home at Kane v. Dep't of Human Servs., 318 A.3d 164, 183", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "(Pa. Commw. 2024). Having so concluded, it viewed its task as whether the Department’s", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "interpretation is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation and whether it", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "“reflect[s] [its] fair and considered judgment.” Id. (citations omitted). Regarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "providers’ experts’ different methodology and rationale for computing inflation, the", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "Commonwealth Court stated that even if the methodology may be more reasonable and", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "accurate, that does not render the Department’s methodology clearly erroneous. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "184. Finding the Department’s interpretation not clearly erroneous or inconsistent with", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "the statute, it was entitled to deference. Id. at 187.", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "The beginning, middle and end of the intermediate appellate court’s rationale was based", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "on deference to the agency’s interpretation. If the Majority’s intent is to clarify the law,", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Majority Op. at 2, it is not helpful to suggest that its decision is based on “slightly different", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "reasons” than that of this lower court opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_330" } ], "word_count": 3503, "cites": [ "588 U.S.\n2", "588 U.S. 574", "519 U.S. 452", "415 U.S. 566", "431 U.S. 864", "325 U.S. 410", "5 U.S. 137" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "ac7544e82dc6f0e28625c98d4128d92a94edcb08c85b601edd04187002928376", "source_url": "https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-99-2025cdo - 106943923376000008.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T10:11:14.083+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "ac7544e82dc6f0e28625c98d4128d92a94edcb08c85b601edd04187002928376", "recomputed_sha256": "ac7544e82dc6f0e28625c98d4128d92a94edcb08c85b601edd04187002928376", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-16T13:01:41.652Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:1adb6c21d1c01b0fd1e3298da473c252ba75026b02482d88ac4187a160f0e091", "version": "legal-2026-10-16", "expires": "2026-10-17T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-16+legal-2026-10-16+2026-10-16T12:14:11", "content_hash": "sha256:1adb6c21d1c01b0fd1e3298da473c252ba75026b02482d88ac4187a160f0e091", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-16T14:01:42.092Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }