Whether the regulatory deference test set forth in Auer v. Robbins and Kisor v. Wilkie should be retired or revised to allow courts to interpret administrative regulations without being required to defer to the agency's interpretation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner is a surgeon, practicing medicine for 30 years. In 2008, Medicare stopped paying his claims, allegedly for nonsubmission of claims, but did not tell him why until 2012. The Medicare contractor then told him how to restore his account and obtain payment for overdue claims and he followed those instructions. Yet, the contractor reversed itself and denied his claims based on a unique interpretation of certain regulations. Petitioner contended the unambiguous regulations compelled a different result and sought judicial relief. The court below, however, deferred to HHS’s regulatory interpretation and denied Petitioner's claim. The court below also interpreted another HHS regulation in a way that HHS never had, precluding recovery for outstanding claims regardless of the reason. Combined, the result forecloses meaningful judicial review despite protections in 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The questions presented are: 1. Whether the regulatory deference test set forth in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) and Kisor v. Wilkie, --U.S. ---, 189 S.Ct. 2400 (2019), should be retired to allow courts the ability to interpret administrative regulations without being required to defer to the agency’s interpretation. 2. Alternatively, whether the test set forth in Auer and Kisor should be revised to ensure courts are able to provide meaningful review of an administrative decision that contravenes unambiguous non-technical regulatory language. 3. Whether HHS can process a provider's claims retroactively, once the provider’s account is restored, notwithstanding 42 C.F.R. § 424.555.