Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n (575 U.S. 92)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 9, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 575 U.S. 92 · 135 S. Ct. 1199
- Decided
- March 9, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2014
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice SOTOMAYORdelivered the opinion of the Court. 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 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 (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 Veteransis 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…
Excerpt of a 80,297-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.