Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sotomayor
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 nevertheless 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…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment · Alito; Concurring in the judgment · Scalia; Concurring in the judgment · Thomas.
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by454 opinions
- Kisor v. WilkieSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection BureauSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoSupreme Court of the United States · 2024
- Bryana Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
449 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.