Issue: Administrative Law
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Term: October 2014
Oral Argument: December 1, 2014
Vote: 9-0
Opinion: Justice Sotomayor
Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Question Presented:
Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.

RLC's Position:
The RLC joined a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits and in support of the employer in the companion cases of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association and Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association. The brief asks the Court to affirm the lower court’s holding that the Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal agencies to provide an opportunity for notice and comment before amending a regulation. This process promotes predictability and allows retailers to inform agencies of the practical implications of regulations.

Case Outcome:
In an unanimous opinion, the Court reversed the judgment below and held that federal agencies' interpretive rules are not required to undergo notice-and-comment before they can be amended.

Case Procedure and Documents: