Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN. 

Syllabus 

opinion  letter  and  issued  an  Administrator’s  Interpretation  conclud-
ing  that  mortgage-loan  officers  do  not  qualify  for  the  administrative
exemption.

MBA  filed  suit  contending,  as  relevant  here,  that  the  Administra-
tor’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.  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  sum-
mary judgment to the Department, but the D. C. Circuit applied Par-
alyzed 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 differ-
ing 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 in-
terpretive  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  jurispru-
dence,  which  has  consistently  held  that  the  APA  “sets  forth  the  full
extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for pro-
cedural  correctness,”  FCC  v.  Fox  Television  Stations,  Inc.,  556  U. S. 
502,  513.   The APA’s rulemaking provisions are no exception: §4 es-
tablishes  “the  maximum  procedural  requirements”  that  courts  may
impose  upon  agencies  engaged  in  rulemaking.   Vermont  Yankee  Nu-
clear  Power  Corp.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  435 
U. S. 519, 524.  By mandating notice-and-comment procedures when
an  agency  changes  its  interpretation  of  one  of  the  regulations  it  en-
forces, 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