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

10

PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

has  effectively  amended  the  regulation  itself,”  something
that  under  the  APA  requires  use  of  notice-and-comment 
procedures.  Brief for Respondent 20–21.

The  act  of  “amending,”  however,  in  both  ordinary  par-
lance  and  legal  usage,  has  its  own  meaning  separate  and 
apart from the act of “interpreting.”  Compare Black’s Law 
Dictionary  98  (10th  ed.  2014)  (defining  “amend”  as  “[t]o 
change  the  wording  of ”  or  “formally  alter  . . .  by  striking
out,  inserting,  or  substituting  words”),  with  id.,  at  943 
(defining  “interpret”  as  “[t]o  ascertain  the  meaning  and
significance of thoughts expressed in words”).  One would 
not normally say that a court “amends” a statute when it 
interprets  its  text.    So  too  can  an  agency  “interpret”  a 
regulation without “effectively amend[ing]” the underlying
source  of  law.    MBA  does  not  explain  how,  precisely,  an
interpretive rule changes the regulation it interprets, and 
its assertion is impossible to reconcile with the longstand-
ing  recognition  that  interpretive  rules  do  not  have  the 
force  and  effect  of  law.   See  Chrysler  Corp.,  441  U. S.,  at 
302,  n.  31  (citing  Attorney  General’s  Manual  on  the  Ad-
ministrative  Procedure  Act  30,  n. 3  (1947));  Skidmore  v. 
Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).

MBA’s “interpretation-as-amendment” theory is particu-
larly odd in light of the limitations of the Paralyzed Veter-
ans  doctrine.    Recall  that  the  rule  of  Paralyzed  Veterans
applies  only  when  an  agency  has  previously  adopted  an 
interpretation  of  its  regulation.    Yet  in  that  initial  inter-
pretation  as  much  as  all  that  come  after,  the  agency  is 
giving a definite meaning to an ambiguous text—the very 
act  MBA  insists  requires  notice  and  comment.    MBA  is 
unable  to  say  why  its  arguments  regarding  revised  inter-
pretations  should  not  also  extend  to  the  agency’s  first 
interpretation.4 

—————— 

4 MBA alternatively suggests that interpretive rules have the force of 
law  because  an  agency’s  interpretation  of  its  own  regulations  may  be