Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 44

20 

PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN. 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

policy  arguments  supporting  even  useful  ‘political  inven-
tions’ are subject to the demands of the Constitution which 
defines powers and . . . sets out . . . how those powers are 
to  be  exercised.”    INS  v.  Chadha,  462  U. S.  919,  945 
(1983).  Even  in  the  face  of  a  perceived  necessity,  the
Constitution  protects  us  from  ourselves.  New  York  v. 
United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187–188 (1992). 

B 
Another  oft-recited  justification  for  Seminole  Rock  def-
erence  is  that  agencies  are  better  situated  to  define  the
original  intent  behind  their  regulations.  See  Martin  v. 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 
144,  152–153  (1991).  Under  this  justification,  “[b]ecause 
the  Secretary  [of  Labor]  promulgates  th[e]  standards,  the 
Secretary  is  in  a  better  position  . . .  to  reconstruct  the
purpose of the regulations in question.”  Id., at 152. 

This justification rings hollow.  This Court has afforded 
Seminole  Rock  deference  to  agency  interpretations  even 
when the agency was not the original drafter.  See Pauley, 
501  U. S.,  at  696–698  (applying  Seminole  Rock  deference 
to  one  agency’s  interpretation  of  another  agency’s  regula-
tions because Congress had delegated authority to both to
administer  the  program).    It  has  likewise  granted  Semi-
nole  Rock  deference  to  agency  interpretations  that  are 
inconsistent with interpretations adopted closer in time to 
the promulgation of the regulations.  See, e.g., Long Island 
Care at Home, 551 U. S., at 170–171. 

Even  if  the  scope  of  Seminole  Rock  deference  more 
closely matched the original-drafter justification, it would
still  fail.  It  is  the  text  of  the  regulations  that  have  the
force  and  effect  of  law,  not  the  agency’s  intent.    “Citizens 
—————— 

significant expansions of the administrative state, ultimately culminat-
ing  in  the  New  Deal.    See  generally  M.  Keller,  Regulating  a  New 
Economy:  Public  Policy  and  Economic  Change  in  America,  1900–1933
(1990).