Administrative Law
575 U.S. 92 (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The APA does not require agencies to use notice-and-comment rulemaking when altering interpretive rules.
In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of agency discretion regarding the issuance of interpretive rules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court held that agencies are not obligated to utilize notice-and-comment rulemaking processes when they significantly alter their interpretations of existing regulations. This emphasizes the balance between the need for agencies to adapt their interpretations in response to changes in policy or understanding while also addressing potential criticisms about accountability and public engagement in the regulatory process.
The ruling specifically highlights the inconsistency of the D.C. Circuit’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine with the APA, which had previously imposed a stricter requirement for interpretive changes. Professors might focus on the implications of this decision for future administrative actions and the broader landscape of administrative law, particularly regarding how agencies navigate their statutory mandates while still ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
APA allows agencies to alter interpretations without alerting the public, which signifies A - 'Always Perceptively Adaptive'.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P. | This case established that significant revisions to interpretive rules required notice-and-comment, which Perez overturned. |
| American Nurses Association v. Harris | In Harris, the court upheld a requirement for notice-and-comment for substantive rules, contrasting with the Perez holding. |
| National Mining Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | In this case, the court focused on the regulatory definitions and agency authority, while Perez addresses interpretive rule flexibility. |
Allowing agencies to change interpretive rules without notice-and-comment promotes efficiency and adaptability in a fast-paced regulatory environment.
It undermines public participation and transparency, as stakeholders are often unaware of significant changes that may affect their interests.
Expect exam questions to focus on the interpretation of regulatory authority under the APA, particularly regarding the necessity of notice-and-comment rulemaking for interpretive rules. Be prepared to discuss the implications of the ruling for agency discretion.