Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 13–1041.  Argued December 1, 2014—Decided March 9, 2015* 

The  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA)  establishes  the  procedures
federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the 
process  of  “formulating,  amending,  or  repealing  a  rule.”    5  U. S. C. 
§551(5).  The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called
“legislative  rules”  are  issued  through  notice-and-comment  rulemak-
ing, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler 
Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303.  “Interpretive rules,” by con-
trast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction 
of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey 
Memorial  Hospital,  514  U. S.  87,  99,  do  not  require  notice-and-
comment  rulemaking,  and  “do  not  have  the  force  and  effect  of  law,” 
ibid. 

In 1999 and 2001, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Divi-
sion issued letters opining that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify 
for the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements under 
the  Fair  Labor  Standards  Act  of  1938.    In  2004,  the  Department  is-
sued  new  regulations  regarding  the  exemption.    Respondent  Mort-
gage  Bankers  Association  (MBA)  requested  a  new  interpretation  of 
the revised regulations as they applied to mortgage-loan officers, and 
in 2006, the Wage and Hour Division issued an opinion letter finding 
that  mortgage-loan  officers  fell  within  the  administrative  exemption
under  the  2004  regulations.    In  2010,  the  Department  again  altered
its interpretation of the administrative exemption.  Without notice or 
an  opportunity  for  comment,  the  Department  withdrew  the  2006 

—————— 

* Together  with  No.  13–1052,  Nickols  et  al.  v.  Mortgage Bankers  As-

sociation, also on certiorari to the same court.