Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

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 THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. 
I  concur  in  the  Court’s  holding  that  the  doctrine  first 
announced  in  Paralyzed  Veterans  of  America  v.  D. C. 
Arena  L.  P.,  117  F. 3d  579  (CADC  1997),  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA),  5  U. S. C.
§551 et seq., and must be rejected.  An agency’s substantial
revision  of  its  interpretation  of  a  regulation  does  not
amount to an “amendment” of the regulation as that word
is used in the statute. 

I write separately because these cases call into question 
the  legitimacy  of  our  precedents  requiring  deference  to 
administrative interpretations of regulations.  That line of 
precedents,  beginning  with  Bowles  v.  Seminole  Rock  & 
Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945), requires judges to defer to
agency  interpretations  of  regulations,  thus,  as  happened 
in  these  cases,  giving  legal  effect  to  the  interpretations 
rather  than  the  regulations  themselves.    Because  this 
doctrine effects a transfer of the judicial power to an exec-