<caption><image_0>The image is a black and white photograph of a group of soldiers in a field. The soldiers are wearing helmets and carrying backpacks and other military equipment. They appear to be in the midst of a battle, as there are trees and bushes in the background. The image is captioned "KISOR V. WILKIE" which translates to "Kisor V. Wilkie" in English. The caption is written in a bold, sans-serif font. The overall mood of the image is tense and somber, suggesting that the soldiers are preparing for battle.</caption><transcript><audio_1>the court took up a challenge to hour and its 2019 decision in the case of kaiser versus wilkie although a plurality of the court would have given our more ringing endorsement</transcript><transcript><audio_2>the majority had to rest its decision on the ground that steri decisis favored keeping the doctrine on justice roberts concurring opinion emphasized the limitations of our enumerated in</transcript><caption><image_3>The image is a close-up of a man's face. He appears to be in his late 40s or early 50s, with short, dark hair and a serious expression. He is wearing a suit and tie, and is looking off to the side. On the left side of the image, there is a quote from Robert C. Concerning in Kiser & Wilkie that reads, "The underlying regulation must be genuinely ambiguous; the agency's interpretation must be reasonable and must reflect its authoritative, expertise-based, and fair and considered judgment; and the agency must take account of reliance interests and avoid unfair surprise."</caption><transcript><audio_4>the underlying regulation must be genuinely ambiguous the agency's interpretation must be reasonable and must reflect its authoritative expert-based and fair and considered judgment and the agency must take account of</transcript><transcript><audio_5>reliance interests justice kagan's opinion for the court did clarify at least</transcript><caption><image_6>The image is a watercolor illustration of a woman sitting at a desk. She is wearing a black blazer and glasses, and appears to be speaking into a microphone. The woman has shoulder-length brown hair and is looking off to the side with a serious expression on her face. The background is white, and there is text on the right side of the image that reads "Some courts have thought perhaps because of Sen. John Kennedy's "plainly erroneous formulation" that agency constructions of rules receive greater defense than agency construction of states."</caption><transcript><audio_7>some courts have thought perhaps because of seminole rock's plainly erroneous formulation that agency constructions of rules receive greater deference than agency constructions of</transcript><transcript><audio_8>statutes but that is not so under our as under chevron the agency's reading must fall within the bounds of reasonable interpretation and let there be no mistake that is a requirement</transcript><caption><image_9>The image is a blackboard with white text written on it. The text reads "Nutrition statute uses the term "normal adult weight" and "Would it be "impermissible" for the agency to interpret this to mean 250 lbs?" The text is written in a bold, sans-serif font and is centered on the blackboard. Below the text, there is a question that reads "A: Likely Agency regulation introduces the term normal adult weight."</caption><transcript><audio_10>an agency can fail i know i don't want to make a mistake recall this example from the previous video i post what i thought was the hour question</transcript> the court took up a challenge to hour and its 2019 decision in the case of kaiser versus wilkie although a plurality of the court would have given our more ringing endorsement the majority had to rest its decision on the ground that steri decisis favored keeping the doctrine on justice roberts concurring opinion emphasized the limitations of our enumerated in the underlying regulation must be genuinely ambiguous the agency's interpretation must be reasonable and must reflect its authoritative expert-based and fair and considered judgment and the agency must take account of reliance interests justice kagan's opinion for the court did clarify at least some courts have thought perhaps because of seminole rock's plainly erroneous formulation that agency constructions of rules receive greater deference than agency constructions of statutes but that is not so under our as under chevron the agency's reading must fall within the bounds of reasonable interpretation and let there be no mistake that is a requirement an agency can fail i know i don't want to make a mistake recall this example from the previous video i post what i thought was the hour question
{"source": "grass-yt-cc-by.0akV_5H9kOQ|shard_10016_22|create_multimodal_data.extract_yt_and_generate_transcripts.32|shard_10016|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.22|shard_10016|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.22", "params": {"id": "0akV_5H9kOQ", "channel_id": "UCbi2rUBrZdy0_1cpSuC5T9w", "duration": 167, "view_count": 29, "age_limit": 0, "like_count": 1, "channel_follower_count": 279, "license": "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)", "uploader_id": "@WilliamAEdmundson", "yt_tar_file": "/leonardo_work/EUHPC_E03_068/audio/fixed_download/grass-yt-cc-by//shard_10016/0akV_5H9kOQ.tar.gz"}}