Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously abdicate its responsibility to decide legal questions by applying their own judgment by deferring to an agency interpretation of the law in contravention of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the overruling of Chevron deference?

1. Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously abdicate its responsibility to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment ” by instead “defer[ring] to an agency interpretation of the law,” in contravention of the clear guidance of this Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), in which this Court overruled Chevron , U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc ., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), when, in deciding an important matter of first impression, it deferred to an administrative interpretation of The Copyright Act of 1909 —a 116 -year -old statute —promulgated by the United States Copyright Office in its administrative manual, the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices , and the 2020 view of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that also deferred to the interpretation of the Copyright Office in the Compendium ? 2. Did the Second Circuit erroneously decide an important and undecided question of federal law — a matter of first impression before the Second Circuit and this Court —namely whether the “deposit copy ” submitted to the Copyright Office, and in particular handwritten sheet music submitted to the Copyright Office as deposit copies for musical compositions, prior to the point in time when the Copyright Office accepted sound recordings as deposit copies for music compositions ( i.e., 1978), works as a limitation on the legal scope of protection afforded by The Copyright Act of 1909?