California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Citicorp v. Franchise Tax Board, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 83 Cal. App. 4th 1403 (Cal. App. 2000):
The fact that an agency changes its interpretation of a statute is not evidence that either interpretation was legally impermissible. (Henning v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1262, 1269-1270.) " 'In the general case, of course, an administrative agency may change its interpretation of a statute, rejecting an old construction and adopting a new. [Citations.] Put simply, "[a]n administrative agency is not disqualified from changing its mind . . . ." [Citation.]' " (Californians for Political Reform Foundation v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 472, 488.) As long as the change is constitutionally and legislatively permissible, an agency would be remiss in not adapting its interpretation of the rules to fit the practicalities and present economic conditions dictating a change.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.