Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

1 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 13–1041 and 13–1052 
_________________ 

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. 

13–1041 

13–1052 

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

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

[March 9, 2015] 

JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in the judgment. 
I agree with the Court’s decision, and all of its reasoning 
demonstrating  the  incompatibility  of  the  D. C.  Circuit’s 
Paralyzed  Veterans  holding  with  the  Administrative  Pro-
cedure Act.  Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L.P., 
117 F. 3d 579 (CADC 1997).  I do not agree, however, with
the Court’s portrayal of the result it produces as a vindica-
tion  of  the  balance  Congress  struck  when  it  “weighed  the
costs and benefits of placing more rigorous . . . restrictions 
on  the  issuance  of  interpretive  rules.”    Ante,  at  9.  That 
depiction  is  accurate  enough  if  one  looks  at  this  case  in
isolation.  Considered  alongside  our  law  of  deference  to 
administrative  determinations,  however,  today’s  decision
produces  a  balance  between  power  and  procedure  quite
different from the one Congress chose when it enacted the 
APA. 

“The  [APA]  was  framed  against  a  background  of  rapid 
expansion  of  the  administrative  process  as  a  check  upon