Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association

![]() | |
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association | |
Reference: 575 US _ (2015) | |
Term: 2014-2015 | |
Important Dates | |
Argued: December 1, 2014 Decided: March 9, 2015 | |
Outcome | |
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed | |
Majority | |
Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Anthony Kennedy • Elena Kagan • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer | |
Concurring | |
Samuel Alito • Antonin Scalia • Clarence Thomas |
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association is a case decided on March 9, 2015, by the United States Supreme Court in which the court clarified that federal agencies must engage in the rulemaking process in order to make changes to regulations that carry the force of law. Agencies are not required to follow rulemaking procedures, however, when making changes to interpretive rules and other guidance documents. The case concerned a change in the interpretation of an "administrative employee" for the purposes of determining overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[1][2][3]
In brief: A 2006 opinion letter from the DOL re-classified the Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) staff of mortgage loan officers as administrative employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the new classification, mortgage loan officers were no longer exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. The MBA sued the DOL and argued that the agency was statutorily required to use the notice-and-comment rulemaking process in order to make substantive changes to its interpretations of regulations. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and held that while federal agencies must engage in the rulemaking process in order to make changes to regulations that carry the force of law, they do not need to follow rulemaking procedures to make changes to interpretations of regulations.[3]
Why it matters: The ruling in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association clarified the process for altering agency policies and guidance documents that do not carry the force of law. The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that since the rulemaking process is not required to issue policy statements, interpretive rules, or guidance documents, it should not be required to make subsequent changes to such documents.[1][3]
Background
Administrative State |
---|
![]() |
Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
• Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
- See also: Guidance (administrative state) and Notice-and-comment rulemaking
The Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) staff of mortgage loan officers were considered to be administrative employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) according to a 2006 opinion letter from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The classification as administrative employees exempted mortgage loan officers from the overtime requirements of the FSLA. In 2010, the DOL reversed its opinion and stated that mortgage loan officers did not qualify as administrative employees and, therefore, were not exempt from the FSLA's overtime requirements.[3]
The MBA sued the DOL in district court and argued that the DOL must use the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, also known as informal rulemaking, in order to make substantive changes to its interpretations of regulations as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Notice-and-comment rulemaking incorporates a comment period for agencies to solicit public feedback on proposed regulations before issuing final rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the DOL and the MBA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case based on a precedent established in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., which required an agency to employ notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to significantly change an interpretation of a regulation. The DOL appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.[3][2]
Oral argument
Oral arguments were held on December 1, 2014. The case was decided on March 9, 2015.[2]
Decision
The United States Supreme Court unanimously decided to reverse and remand the lower court's ruling. The majority opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Samuel Alito joined in part of the majority opinion and issued a concurring opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas issued concurring opinions.[3]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
- See also: Guidance (administrative state)
Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the precedent established in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., which required an agency to use notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to significantly change an interpretation of a regulation, was invalid and contrary to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Sotomayor observed that the APA only requires agencies to use notice-and-comment rulemaking when enacting a legislative rule that has the force of law. Interpretive rules, often issued through guidance documents, are suggestions for best practices and do not carry the force of law.[1]
“ | The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to the clear text of the APA’s rulemaking provisions, and it improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the 'maximum procedural requirements' specified in the APA.
|
” |
—Justice Sonia Sotomayor, majority opinion in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)[1] |
Concurring opinions
Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in part with the majority and concurring in the judgment. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also authored opinions concurring in the judgment. The justices agreed that the precedent established in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P. was incompatible with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also observed that Seminole Rock deference (also known as Auer deference), in which a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, may have been a motivating factor in crafting the Paralyzed Veterans decision and warrants further review. Alito stated, "I await a case in which the validity of Seminole Rock may be explored through full briefing and argument."[2][5]
Impact
The ruling in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association clarified the process for altering agency policies, interpretive rules, and guidance documents that do not carry the force of law. The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that since the rulemaking process is not required to issue such documents, it should not be required to make subsequent changes.[1][3]
See also
- Guidance (administrative state)
- Notice-and-comment rulemaking
- Rulemaking
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Legal Information Institute, "PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.," accessed May 30, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 JUSTIA, "Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)," accessed May 30, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Oyez, "Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association," accessed May 30, 2018
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association," accessed May 30, 2018