United States v. Eurodif S. a. et al.
Decided January 26, 2009. David Hackett Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 07-1059 · 555 U.S. 305 (2009) · Cited 139 times
Holding
The Department’s take on the transactions at issue as sales of goods rather than services reflects a permissible interpretation and application of §1673.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 9–0.
Majority · 9
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
- United States v. Mead Corp. · 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
- Tcherepnin v. Knight · 389 U.S. 332 (1967)
- Frank Lyon Co. v. United States · 435 U.S. 561 (1978)
- Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A. · 517 U.S. 735 (1996)
- Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co. · 308 U.S. 252 (1939)
Cited by
Later Supreme Court opinions in our collection that cite this case.
- City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n · 569 U.S. 290 (2013)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
David Hackett Souter’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2009). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).