applicable to client trust accounts. Id. at § 322.7(b). Slightly more than a year later, on December 16, 2011, plaintiff republished the MARS rule as Regulation O at 12 C.F.R. part 1015. 16 C.F.R. § 322.1 (noting April 13, 2012 rescission of MARS rule). Regulation O banned the same deceptive practices as the MARS rule and carved out the same limited exemption for attorneys. 12 C.F.R. §§ 1015.3-1015.7. B. Legal Standard The parties agree that to determine an agency’s rulemaking authority with respect to a statute that it administers, courts apply the familiar analysis set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). City of Arlington, Texas v. F.C.C., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1871, 185 L.Ed.2d 941 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Food & Drug Administration v. Brown &
holding that whether a city has the authority to enact a particular statutory scheme is a purely legal question holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law holding chevron applies to question whether statutory text forecloses agencys assertion of authority holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum