Public notice for rule changes
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling and said the APA does not require public comment just because an agency significantly changes its interpretation of a regulation.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · March 9, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Labor Department had to use public notice-and-comment procedures to significantly change its interpretation of a rule.
- Who it affects
- Federal agencies do not need public notice and comment solely because they significantly change how they interpret a regulation.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, deciding that the Administrative Procedure Act does not impose that extra requirement on agencies.
The D.C. Circuit had required the Labor Department to use public notice-and-comment procedures when significantly changing its interpretation of a regulation.
Question presented
Must a federal agency engage in a notice-and-comment procedure before it can significantly alter an interpretation of a rule of agency regulation?
What the Court decided
Holding
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. 720 F. 3d 966, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the D.C. Circuit’s rule conflicted with the Administrative Procedure Act’s clear text and required agencies to follow procedures beyond what the law requires.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Thomaswrote separately
- Scaliawrote separately
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished its review; no further step is identified.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Perez
More questions
- Did the ruling eliminate all notice-and-comment requirements?
- No. The Court rejected the extra requirement for changing an interpretation; it did not say agencies may ignore notice-and-comment procedures the APA requires.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.