Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

“general proposition that courts are not free to impose upon 
agencies specific procedural requirements that have no ba-
sis in the APA.”  LTV Corp., 496 U. S., at 654.  Rather than 
adopting this test, we focus our inquiry on whether the De-
partments satisfied the APA’s objective criteria, just as we
have in previous cases.  We conclude that they did.

Section 553(b) obligated the Departments to provide ade-
quate notice before promulgating a rule that has legal force. 
As explained supra, at 22–23, the IFRs provided sufficient 
notice.  Aside  from  these  notice  requirements,  the  APA
mandates that agencies “give interested persons an oppor-
tunity to participate in the rule making through submission 
of written data, views, or arguments,” §553(c); states that
the final rules must include “a concise general statement of
their basis and purpose,” ibid.; and requires that final rules
must  be  published  30  days  before  they  become  effective,
§553(d).

The Departments complied with each of these statutory
procedures.  They  “request[ed]  and  encourag[ed]  public 
comments on all matters addressed” in the rules—i.e., the 
basis  for  the  Departments’  legal  authority,  the  rationales 
for  the  exemptions,  and  the  detailed  discussion  of  the  ex-
emptions’ scope.  82 Fed. Reg. 47813, 47854.  They also gave
interested  parties  60  days  to  submit  comments.  Id.,  at 
47792, 47838.  The final rules included a concise statement 
of their basis and purpose, explaining that the rules were
“necessary to protect sincerely held” moral and religious ob-
jections and summarizing the legal analysis supporting the 
exemptions.  83  Fed.  Reg.  57592;  see  also  id.,  at  57537– 
57538.  Lastly, the final rules were published on November
15,  2018,  but  did  not  become  effective  until  January  14,
2019—more  than  30  days  after  being  published.    Id.,  at 
57536, 57592.  In sum, the rules fully complied with “ ‘the 
maximum  procedural  requirements  [that]  Congress  was
willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conduct-