We'll hear argument next in case 23, 1226 McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates against McKesson Corporation.

Mr. Wessler.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Five years ago, in PDR Network, four justices recognized that properly construed the Hobbs Act does not require district courts to treat agency orders

that interpret federal statutes as binding precedent.

Instead, it operates just like other pre-enforcement channeling statutes by providing

for direct review of agency orders in the courts of appeals.

McKesson and the government reject this view.

Together, they urge an interpretation that would bind courts, including this one, to agency

interpretations of federal statutes no matter how wrong.

And that would be true even for interpretive rules that, by definition, do not carry the force

of law, transforming even the most informal agency interpretations into permanently binding

ones.

But none of the relevant markers, text, context, structure, and history support such a

misguided and possibly unconstitutional reading of the Hobbs Act.

The key phrase, determine the validity of, authorizes courts of appeals to determine whether an

order is legally in effect.

And a court does this by issuing a declaratory judgment that the order is valid or

invalid.

Context cinches this.

The phrase is immediately surrounded by terms which all denote specific forms of

equitable relief directed against the order itself.

...