How powerful are government departments when it comes to interpreting the laws they are charged with administering? Typically, courts defer to departmental interpretations that are issued through notice and comment rulemaking, or that are based on particular expertise that the department has because it deals with the subject so extensively. In this case, however, the Department of Labor's interpretation of minimum wage and overtime requirements for "companion services" provided by an agency were not entitled to deference, according to the Second Circuit, because it was inconsistent with some congressional purposes in the law, with other regulations, with past interpretations, and was not sufficiently explained.
On June 11, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed. It ruled that Congress expressly left several unanswered issues for the Department of Labor to resolve, and the Department did so with notice-and-comment rulemaking. Because the Department's interpretation was reasonable and the final regulation was the "logical outgrowth" of the proposed regulation, the Court accepted it.