The Court issued its decision in June 2019 that Kisor lacked sufficient motivation and rationale to overturn Auer on precedent, but did reverse and remand the veteran's case to be reheard with stricter adherence to the principles of whether the Auer deference did apply in the veteran's case.

[7][6] Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion for Auer, later stated his regret for writing that decision, calling it "one of the worst opinions in the history of this country," and questioned it in a concurring opinion in Talk America v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.[8][6] Justice Clarence Thomas had written in his dissenting opinion on the denial of the petition for United Student Aid Funds v. Bible (Docket 15–861) that members of the Court, including himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, had "repeatedly called for [Auer's] reconsideration in an appropriate case".

[9] Observers also identified that Justice Neil Gorsuch, while he served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, authored decisions that called for a re-evaluation of Auer.

Both the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the VA's decision,[11] affirming that Auer gave the VA the ability to define the meaning of "relevant" in this regulation, and putting the onus on Kisor to demonstrate it was not a valid interpretation.

[12] Kisor's petition for the Federal Circuit to rehear the case en banc was denied, with three judges dissenting.

[8] Justice Stephen Breyer half-jokingly expressed concern that a poor decision in this case could be the "greatest judicial power grab since Marbury v.

The court inferred that the agency itself can best state the regulation's authorial intent, has the expertise to make what's essentially a policy decision, and can promote uniformity.

[6] The Court's unanimous ruling on the judgment of the specific matter of Kisor's case with the VA found that the Federal Circuit did not use all the tools it had at hand to properly analyze the interpretation of the VA's regulations, thus vacating the prior decision and remanding it for review in light of the limitations set forth for the Auer deference.