Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 20

2 

BIDEN v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

it did.  Under our Constitution, the authority to make laws 
that impose obligations on the American people is conferred 
on  Congress,  whose  Members  are  elected  by  the  people.
Elected representatives solicit  the views of their constitu-
ents,  listen  to  their  complaints  and  requests,  and  make  a 
great  effort  to  accommodate  their  concerns.    Today,  how-
ever, most federal law is not made by Congress.  It comes in 
the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.  In or-
der  to  give  individuals  and  entities  who  may  be  seriously
impacted by agency rules at least some opportunity to make
their views heard and to have them given serious consider-
ation, Congress has clearly required that agencies comply
with basic procedural safeguards.  Except in rare cases, an
agency  must  provide  public  notice  of  proposed  rules,  5 
U. S. C. §553(b); the public must be given the opportunity
to comment on those proposals, §553(c); and if the agency 
issues the rule, it must address concerns raised during the 
notice-and-comment process.  United States v. Nova Scotia 
Food  Products  Corp.,  568  F.  2d  240,  252  (CA2  1977);  see 
also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State 
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983).  The 
rule  may  then  be  challenged  in  court,  and  the  court  may 
declare the rule unlawful if these procedures have not been 
followed. 

In  these  cases,  the  relevant  agency  did  none  of  those 
things, and the Court rewards this extraordinary departure
from ordinary principles of administrative procedure.  Alt-
hough today’s ruling means only that the Federal Govern-
ment is likely to be able to show that this departure is law-
ful, not that it actually is so, this ruling has an importance
that  extends  beyond  the  confines  of  these  cases.    It  may
have a lasting effect on Executive Branch behavior. 

Because  of  the  importance  of  notice-and-comment  rule-
making, an agency must show “good cause” if it wishes to
skip that process.  5 U. S. C. §553(b)(3)(B).  Although this
Court has never precisely defined what an agency must do