Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro’s Empirical Analysis
579 U.S. 211 · 2016
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably 138 S. Ct. 1134 - Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro (2018), Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
84 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 259 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · United States v. Mead Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One of the basic procedural requirements of administrative rulemaking is that an agency must give adequate reasons for its decisions.”
63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the new policy is permissible under the statute,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“does not require proof that the defendant knew he was obtaining, using, or disclosing information illegally " (emphasis added) ). As established by the Seventh Circuit, the Information here constitutes personal information, id. at 967 . Thus, the Sun-Times' actions fall squarely within Section 2722(a), regardless of whether the Secretary lawfully or unlawfully disclosed the Information. The Sun-Times' reliance on Chevron deference is also misplaced. Chevron deference only applies where "an agency is authorized by Congress to issue regulations and promulgates a regulation interpreting a statute it enforces.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.