__ U.S. __ (2015), 13-1041, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n

Docket Nº13-1041, 13-1052
Citation__ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 191 L.Ed.2d 186, 83 U.S.L.W. 4160, 25 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 127
Opinion JudgeSOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE.
Party NameTHOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. ; JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION
AttorneyEdwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for petitioners. Allyson N. Ho argued the cause for respondent.
Judge PanelSOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined except for Part III-B. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., and THOMAS, J., filed...
Case DateMarch 09, 2015
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page __

__ U.S. __ (2015)

135 S.Ct. 1199, 191 L.Ed.2d 186, 83 U.S.L.W. 4160, 25 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 127

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. ; JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

Nos. 13-1041, 13-1052

United States Supreme Court

March 9, 2015

Argued December 1, 2014. [*]

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

720 F.3d 966, 405 U.S. App.D.C. 429, reversed.

SYLLABUS

[135 S.Ct. 1200] [191 L.Ed.2d 192] The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for " rule making," defined as the process of " formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." 5 U.S.C. § 551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called " legislative [135 S.Ct. 1201] rules" are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see § § 553(b), (c), and have the " force and effect of law," Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302-303, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208. " Interpretive rules," by contrast, are " issued . . . to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers," Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 131 L.Ed.2d 106, do not require [191 L.Ed.2d 193] notice-and-comment rulemaking, and " do not have the force and effect of law," ibid.

In 1999 and 2001, the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued letters opining that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In 2004, the Department issued new regulations regarding the exemption. Respondent Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) requested a new interpretation of the revised regulations as they applied to mortgage-loan officers, and in 2006, the Wage and Hour Division issued an opinion letter finding that mortgage-loan officers fell within the administrative exemption under the 2004 regulations. In 2010, the Department again altered its interpretation of the administrative exemption. Without notice or an opportunity for comment, the Department withdrew the 2006 opinion letter and issued an Administrator's Interpretation concluding that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption.

MBA filed suit contending, as relevant here, that the Administrator's Interpretation was procedurally invalid under the D. C. Circuit's decision in Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F.3d 579, 326 U.S. App.D.C. 25. The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine holds that an agency must use the APA's notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a previously adopted interpretation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Department, but the D. C. Circuit applied Paralyzed Veterans and reversed.

Held : The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to the clear text of the APA's rulemaking provisions and improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the APA's maximum procedural requirements. Pp. 6-14.

(a) The APA's categorical exemption of interpretive rules from the notice-and-comment process is fatal to the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine. The D. C. Circuit's reading of the APA conflates the differing purposes of § § 1 and 4 of the Act. Section 1 requires agencies to use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(5), but it does not say what procedures an agency must use when it engages in rulemaking. That is the purpose of § 4. And § 4 specifically exempts interpretive rules from notice-and-comment requirements. Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures to amend or repeal that rule. Pp. 7-8.

(b) This straightforward reading of the APA harmonizes with longstanding principles of this Court's administrative law jurisprudence, which has consistently held that the APA " sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738. The APA's rulemaking provisions are no exception: § 4 establishes " the maximum procedural requirements" that courts may impose upon agencies engaged in rulemaking. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources [135 S.Ct. 1202] Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460. By mandating [191 L.Ed.2d 194] notice-and-comment procedures when an agency changes its interpretation of one of the regulations it enforces, Paralyzed Veterans creates a judge-made procedural right that is inconsistent with Congress' standards. Pp. 8-9.

(c) MBA's reasons for upholding the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine are unpersuasive. Pp. 9-14.

(1) MBA asserts that an agency interpretation of a regulation that significantly alters the agency's prior interpretation effectively amends the underlying regulation. That assertion conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the words " amend" and " interpret," and it is impossible to reconcile with the longstanding recognition that interpretive rules do not have the force and effect of law. MBA's theory is particularly odd in light of the limitations of the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which applies only when an agency has previously adopted an interpretation of its regulation. MBA fails to explain why its argument regarding revised interpretations should not also extend to the agency's first interpretation. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621, and Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 131 L.Ed.2d 106, distinguished. Pp. 9-12.

(2) MBA also contends that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine reinforces the APA's goal of procedural fairness. But the APA already provides recourse to regulated entities from agency decisions that skirt notice-and-comment provisions by placing a variety of constraints on agency decisionmaking, e.g., the arbitrary and capricious standard. In addition, Congress may include safe-harbor provisions in legislation to shelter regulated entities from liability when they rely on previous agency interpretations. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § § 259(a), (b)(1). Pp. 12-13.

(3) MBA has waived its argument that the 2010 Administrator's Interpretation should be classified as a legislative rule. From the beginning, this suit has been litigated on the understanding that the Administrator's Interpretation is an interpretive rule. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed this argument below, and MBA did not raise it here in opposing certiorari. P. 14.

720 F.3d 966, 405 U.S. App.D.C. 429, reversed.

Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for petitioners.

Allyson N. Ho argued the cause for respondent.

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined except for Part III-B. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., and THOMAS, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment.

OPINION

[135 S.Ct. 1203] SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE.

When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals [191 L.Ed.2d 195] for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F.3d 579, 326 U.S. App.D.C. 25 (1997), that an agency must use the APA's notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not.

I

A

The APA establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for " rule making," defined as the process of " formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." § 551(5). " Rule," in turn, is defined broadly to include " statement[s] of general or particular applicability and future effect" that are designed to " implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy." § 551(4).

Section 4 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553, prescribes a three-step procedure for so-called " notice-and-comment rulemaking." First, the agency must issue a " [g]eneral notice of proposed rule making," ordinarily by publication in the Federal Register. § 553(b). Second, if " notice [is] required," the agency must " give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments." § 553(c). An agency must consider and respond to significant comments received during the period for public comment. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 408, 239 U.S. App.D.C. 179 (CADC 1984). Third, when the agency promulgates the final rule, it must include in the rule's text " a concise general statement of [its] basis and purpose." § 553(c). Rules issued through the notice-and-comment process are often referred to as " legislative rules" because they have the " force and effect of law." Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302-303, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Not all " rules" must be issued through the notice-and-comment process. Section 4(b)(A) of the APA provides that, [135 S.Ct. 1204] unless another statute states otherwise,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
393 practice notes
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...on the rule, the agency should carefully consider and respond to that request in its decision. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1203 (2015). In appropriate circumstances, an agency might explain that it will consider requests for accommodations on a case-by-case basis r......
  • Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 27, 2016
    • May 27, 2016
    ...Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (overruled in part by Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015))) involve questions related to interpretative rules. Therefore, we do not consider them to be applicable to this final rule, which is ......
  • Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 13, 2016
    • October 13, 2016
    ...existing obligations under the statute, and explains preexisting requirements under the statute. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015), quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995) (noting that interpretative rules are ``issued by an agency to ......
  • Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision and Order
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 15, 2015
    • September 15, 2015
    ...overruled by the Supreme Court on the very proposition for which it is cited by Respondent. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206-07 (2015) (``Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretative rule, it also is not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
266 cases
  • 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), 18-72689, City Of Portland v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 12, 2020
    ...no comments raised any such disparity during the regulatory process. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 96, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) (explaining that an agency has an obligation to respond to significant comments received). There are criti......
  • 291 F.Supp.3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), 16-CV-4756 (NGG) (JO), Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 29, 2018
    ...a rule as the same ones that were used to make the rule in the first place. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1206, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) ("Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial&......
  • 946 N.W.2d 35 (Wis. 2020), 2019AP614-LV, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) v. Vos
    • United States
    • Wisconsin United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 9, 2020
    ...power shall be vested in a governor...."); Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 119, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring) ("It is undoubtedly true that the other branches of Government have the authority and obligation to inter......
  • 446 F.Supp.3d 107 (W.D.Va. 2020), C. A. 3:18CV00113, Southern Environmental Law Center v. Council On Environmental Quality
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • March 18, 2020
    ...1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978) (footnote omitted); accord Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 102, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) (overturning doctrine that created "a judge-made procedural right" that was inconsistent the "maximum proced......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 firm's commentaries
  • Energy Sector Alert Series: Supreme Court Cases to Watch
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • October 14, 2016
    ...C.J., concurring) (“It may be appropriate to reconsider [Auer deference] in an appropriate case.”); Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1210-11 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring in part) (judicial deference to agency interpretation of regulations ripe for Supreme Court review); id. ......
  • Administrative Procedure Act Litigation: The Changing Regulatory Landscape, The Role Of Industry, And Emerging Issues
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 29, 2017
    ...14 Presidential Mem. on Fiduciary Duty Rule (Feb. 3, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 9675. 15 See 5 U.S.C. § 553; Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015) (noting that "§ 1 of the APA [mandates] that agencies use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they use......
  • 2015 Mid-Year Securities Litigation and Enforcement Highlights
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 5, 2015
    ...that provides deference to agency interpretations of ambiguities in the agency’s own regulations.12 9 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S.Ct. 1199 (2015). Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 11 Perez, 135 S.Ct. at 1206 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 553 (......
  • Did The SEC Staff Bypass The APA In Issuing New And Revised Non-GAAP Financial Measure C&DIs?
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • May 20, 2016
    ...C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579, 586 (1997), which was overruled in part last year by the Supreme Court in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). The SEC choice to forego notice and comment rulemaking does come with a significant downside. Interpretive rules ““do not have the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 books & journal articles
  • ARTICLE II AND ANTIDISCRIMINATION NORMS.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Nbr. 2019, October 2019
    • October 1, 2019
    ...order). (160.) See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2120 (2018) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1210 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); id. at 1211 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment); Decker v. ......
  • Inside the agency class action.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 126 Nbr. 6, April 2017
    • April 1, 2017
    ...and to make ad hoc procedural rulings in specific instances." (citations omitted)). (73.) See, e.g., Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1207 (2015) ("Time and again, we have reiterated that the APA 'sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive ......
  • The Fourth Amendment as administrative governance.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 68 Nbr. 5, May 2016
    • May 1, 2016
    ...to the agency."). (288.) See id. at 516-17 (majority opinion) (discussing 5 U.S.C. [section] 706(2)(A)). (289.) See id. (290.) 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1203 (2015). (291.) Id. at 1206. (292.) See Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524 (1978); see also......
  • Reliance on nonenforcement.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 58 Nbr. 3, February 2017
    • February 1, 2017
    ...On the distinction between binding legislative rules and interpretive rules and policies in general, see Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015). (231.) See Christopher, 132 S. Ct. at 2167-68. (232.) Id. at 2168 (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)). (233.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 provisions
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...on the rule, the agency should carefully consider and respond to that request in its decision. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1203 (2015). In appropriate circumstances, an agency might explain that it will consider requests for accommodations on a case-by-case basis r......
  • Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 27, 2016
    • May 27, 2016
    ...Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (overruled in part by Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015))) involve questions related to interpretative rules. Therefore, we do not consider them to be applicable to this final rule, which is ......
  • Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 13, 2016
    • October 13, 2016
    ...existing obligations under the statute, and explains preexisting requirements under the statute. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015), quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995) (noting that interpretative rules are ``issued by an agency to ......
  • Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Decision and Order
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 15, 2015
    • September 15, 2015
    ...overruled by the Supreme Court on the very proposition for which it is cited by Respondent. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206-07 (2015) (``Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretative rule, it also is not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results