Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

1 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

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 ALITO, concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment. 

I  join  the  opinion  of  the  Court  except  for  Part  III–B.    I 
agree that the doctrine of Paralyzed Veterans of America v. 
D.  C.  Arena  L.  P.,  117  F.  3d  579  (CADC  1997),  is  incom-
patible with the Administrative Procedure Act.  The crea-
tion  of  that  doctrine  may  have  been  prompted  by  an  un-
derstandable  concern  about  the  aggrandizement  of  the 
power  of  administrative  agencies  as  a  result  of  the  com-
bined  effect  of  (1) the  effective  delegation  to  agencies  by 
Congress  of  huge  swaths  of  lawmaking  authority,  (2) the
exploitation  by  agencies  of  the  uncertain  boundary  be-
tween  legislative  and  interpretive  rules,  and  (3) this
Court’s cases holding that courts  must ordinarily defer to 
an  agency’s  interpretation  of  its  own  ambiguous  regula-
tions.  See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 
410 (1945).  I do not dismiss these concerns, but the Para-
lyzed Veterans doctrine is not a viable cure for these prob-