Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 4

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule 
interpreting  one  of  its  regulations,  it  is  generally  not 
required  to  follow  the  notice-and-comment  rulemaking
procedures  of  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA  or 
Act).  See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A).  The United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has never-
theless  held,  in  a  line  of  cases  beginning  with  Paralyzed 
Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997),
that  an  agency  must  use  the  APA’s  notice-and-comment 
procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of 
a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency 
has  previously  adopted.    The  question  in  these  cases  is 
whether  the  rule  announced  in  Paralyzed  Veterans  is 
consistent with the APA.  We hold that it is not.