green
Positive treatment
Trending · 128 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 5×
72.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2010 ·
…if a new regulation is substantively inconsistent with a ... prior agency practice, ... it is retroactive....
at p. 860
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cox v. Berryhill
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
t would be unlawfully retroactive to apply the definitions to any claims other than those filed on or after the regulations' effective date.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta
it is important to note that did not involve a regulation.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
less obviously, the regulations preclude the courts in other circuits from adopting the view of their sister court rejecting the secretary's position, a possibility that was still available when the cases were initially filed.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arkema Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
if a new regulation is substantively inconsistent with a ... prior agency practice, ... it is retroactive....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Scarlett
the d.c. circuit recently reaffirmed the principle of law that the apa provides a default standard of review where a statute does not otherwise provide a standard.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chiesi USA, Inc. v. Becerra
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Lab., 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilgar Land Co. v. OWCP
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
I A After years of working in dust-filled coal mines, many miners develop a respiratory condition medically known as “pneumoconiosis” and commonly known as “black lung disease.” See Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Lab., 292 F.3d 849, 854 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Seia v. Ferc
FERC 1059 , 1072 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying the principles of Landgraf to the analysis of regulatory retroactivity); National Mining Ass’n v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Angela Cox v. Kilolo Kijakazi
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
Cox II, 2022 WL 178953 , at *7 (alteration in original) (quoting National Mining Ass’n v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 864 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Secretary of Labor v. Westfall Aggregate & Materials, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Lab., 292 F.3d 849, 871 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Medical Association v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
E.g., Docket No. 62 at 23 (citing, e.g., Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 868 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kyler v. Saul
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Lab., 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Acosta
But a “provision operates retroactively when it ‘impair[s] rights a party possessed when he acted, increase[s] a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions already completed.’” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (per curiam) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Bar Association v. United States Department of Education
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Free Enter., 561 U.S. at 490 (challenging the very existence of an administrative agency, not any proceeding before that agency); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 855 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Free Enter., 561 U.S. at 490 (challenging the very existence of an administrative agency, not any proceeding before that agency); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 855 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Free Enter., 561 U.S. at 490 (challenging the very existence of an administrative agency, not any proceeding before that agency); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 855 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant Medical Center v. Hargan
Second, the Hospitals have this circuit’s retroactivity law backwards: while we have prohibited retroactive application of a rule that disadvantages a party by “effecting] a substantive change from the agency's prior-regulation,” National Mining Association v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant Medical Center v. Eric D. Hargan
Second, the Hospitals have this circuit’s retroactivity law backwards: while we have prohibited retroactive application of a rule that disadvantages a party by “effect[ing] a substantive change from the agency’s prior regulation,” National Mining Association v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jafarzadeh v. Duke
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 858 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Statutory and Regulatory Background The Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., “providfes] benefits to coal miners who are totally disabled by pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease, and to the surviving dependents of miners who died of the disease.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 854 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bartko v. Securities & Exchange Commission
(2×)
That is, we look to see if the law “impair[s] rights a party possessed when he acted, increase[s] a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose[s] new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Nat'l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abington Memorial Hospital v. Burwell
(2×)
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant Medical Center v. Burwell
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“If a new regulation is substantively inconsistent with a prior regulation, prior agency practice, or any Court of Appeals decision rejecting a prior regulation or agency practice, it is retroactive as applied to pending claims.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Federation of the Blind v. United States Department of Transportation
NFB argues that our precedent, including National Mining Ass’n v. DOL, 292 F.3d 849, 856, 858-59 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regents of the University of California v. Burwell
(2×)
“The general legal principles governing retroactivity are relatively easy to state, although not as easy to apply.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Thus, “[t]he medical literature makes it clear that pneumoconiosis” — even in its simple form — “may be latent and progressive.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 292 F.3d at 863; accord RAG Am.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
New York Republican State Committee v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Id. at 859.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
New York Republican State Committee v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Ass’n v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 856 (D.C.Cir.2002). 8 Notwithstanding the ordinary distinction in meaning between “orders” and “rules” in construing a review statute, the decision in Investment Company Institute was premised primarily upon a policy determination: “If the administrative record forms the basis for review, requiring petitioners challenging regulations to go first to the district court results in unnecessary delay and expense, .. ■. and undesirable bifurcation of the reviewing function between the district courts and the courts of appeals.” 551 F.2d at …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mohan Kutty v. United States Dep't of Labor
However, we agree that application of the current regulation raises no retroactivity concerns because it merely clarifies a pre-existing requirement and does not "attach[] new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” See National Mining Ass’n v. Dep't of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 855 (D.C.Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weaver v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 856 (D.C.Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CS-360, LLC v. United States Small Business Administration
Circuit has emphasized that “in the administrative context, a rule is retroactive if it takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing law, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” National Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir.2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Forest Resource Council v. Ashe
See Advocates, 429 F.3d at 1148-50 (rejecting argument that “it is inappropriate [under Sims ] to apply the general principles of issue waiver to administrative rulemaking”); see also, e.g., Koretoff, 707 F.3d at 398-99 ; Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 874 (D.C.Cir.2002); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 , 562 (D.C.Cir.2002) (per curiam) (“We decline to reach .the merits of NWF’s cost estimate challenges because neither NWF nor any other party before the agency raised any of these contentions during the administrative phase of the rulemaking proc…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States
In the legal sense of the term, retroactivity occurs when a statute or rule “takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing law, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” National Mining Association v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Columbia Saint Mary's Hospital Milwaukee, Inc. v. Sebelius
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To determine whether a rule is impermissibly retroactive, the Court must “first look to see whether it effects a substantive change from the agency’s prior regulation or prac *180 tice.” National Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.Cir.2002).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corporation v. Sebelius
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
To determine whether a rule is "impermissibly" retroactive, courts "first look to see whether [the rule] effects a substantive change from the agency’s prior regulation or practice." Id. at 14 (quoting Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.Cir.2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Select Specialty Hospital - Akron, LLC v. Sebelius
To determine whether a rule is impermissibly retroactive, the Court “first look[s] to see whether it effects a substantive change from the agency’s prior regulation or practice.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northeast Hospital Corp. v. Sebelius
To determine whether a rule .is impermissibly retroactive, “we first look to see whether it effects a substantive change from the agency’s prior regulation or practice.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 860 (D.C.Cir.2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. World Savings Bank, Fsb
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forsyth Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Sebelius
BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: On Petition for Rehearing En Banc “An agency may not promulgate retroactive rules absent express congressional authority.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir.2002) (citing Bowen v. Georgetown Univ.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
Partnership v. Salazar, 553 F.3d 697, 707 (D.C.Cir.2009); Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78 , 88 *8 (D.C.Cir.2006); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 874 (D.C.Cir.2002). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (D.C.Cir. 2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Helen Mining Co. v. Director OWCP
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The rule is instead designed to preventf] operators from claiming that pneumoconiosis is never latent and progressive.’ ” Midland Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 358 F.3d at 491 (quoting National Mining Association, 292 F.3d at 863). 6 . 20 C.F.R. § 725.309 (d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ispat/Inland, Inc. v. Director OWCP
(2×)
See 20 C.F.R. § 725.103 ; Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 861 (D.C.Cir.2002) (“a claimant ... bears the burden of demonstrating that he meets all of the relevant conditions”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gunderson v. United States Department of Labor
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pneumoconiosis “encompasses a cruel set of conditions that afflict a significant percentage of the nation’s coal miners with ‘severe, and frequently crippling, chronic respiratory impairment.’ ” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 854 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 6 , 96 S.Ct. 2882 , 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Live365, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board
However, the constitutional facial challenges here “advance[] a ‘broad-scale attack’ . . . to the [Copyright] Act itself that is not ‘of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within this statutory structure.” Free Enter., 537 F.3d at 671 (quoting Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 856 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Live365, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board
However, the constitutional facial challenges here “advancef ] a ‘broad-scale attack’ ... to the [Copyright] Act itself that is not ‘of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within this statutory structure.’ ” Free Enter., 537 F.3d at 671 (quoting Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 856 (D.C.Cir.2002) and Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 212 , 114 S.Ct. 771 , 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994)); cf. Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Natl Mining Assn
v.
DOL
v.
DOL
01-5278.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jun 18, 2002.
292 F.3d 849
Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (1)
United States Court of Appeals
for the district of columbia circuit
No. 01-5278 September Term, 2001 00cv03086
National Mining Association, et al.,
Appellants Filed On: June 14, 2002 [683610]
v.
Department of Labor, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 00cv03086)
Before: Edwards and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, that the Opinion filed on June 14, 2002, be amended, as follows:
Page 38, paragraph under Conclusion section, line 2, delete the word "instructions" and insert the word "proceedings"
for the district of columbia circuit
No. 01-5278 September Term, 2001 00cv03086
National Mining Association, et al.,
Appellants Filed On: June 14, 2002 [683610]
v.
Department of Labor, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 00cv03086)
Before: Edwards and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, that the Opinion filed on June 14, 2002, be amended, as follows:
Page 38, paragraph under Conclusion section, line 2, delete the word "instructions" and insert the word "proceedings"
Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Linda Jones Deputy Clerk