Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

the  most  notable.    As  we  held  in  Fox  Television  Stations, 
and  underscore  again  today,  the  APA  requires  an  agency 
to  provide  more  substantial  justification  when  “its  new
policy  rests  upon  factual  findings  that  contradict  those 
which  underlay  its  prior  policy;  or  when  its  prior  policy 
has  engendered  serious  reliance  interests  that  must  be 
taken  into  account.    It  would  be  arbitrary  and  capricious
to  ignore  such  matters.”  556  U. S.,  at  515  (citation  omit-
ted); see also id., at 535 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part 
and concurring in judgment).

In addition, Congress is aware that agencies sometimes 
alter their views in ways that upset settled reliance inter-
ests.  For that reason, Congress sometimes includes in the 
statutes it drafts safe-harbor provisions that shelter regu-
lated entities from liability when they act in conformance 
with previous agency interpretations.  The FLSA includes 
one  such  provision:  As  amended  by  the  Portal-to-Portal 
Act  of  1947,  29  U.  S.  C.  §251  et seq.,  the  FLSA  provides
that  “no  employer  shall  be  subject  to  any  liability”  for 
failing “to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation”
if it demonstrates that the “act or omission complained of
was  in  good  faith  in  conformity  with  and  in  reliance  on
any  written  administrative  regulation,  order,  ruling,
approval,  or  interpretation”  of  the  Administrator  of  the
Department’s  Wage  and  Hour  Division,  even  when  the
guidance is later “modified or rescinded.”  §§259(a), (b)(1). 
These safe harbors will often protect parties from liability 
when  an  agency  adopts  an  interpretation  that  conflicts
with its previous position.5 

—————— 

5 The  United  States  acknowledged  at  argument  that  even  in  situa-
tions  where  a  statute  does  not  contain  a  safe-harbor  provision  similar
to the one included in the FLSA, an agency’s ability to pursue enforce-
ment actions against regulated entities for conduct in conformance with 
prior agency interpretations may be limited by principles of retroactiv- 
ity.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 44–45.  We have no occasion to consider how 
such principles might apply here.