Litigants: | Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association |
Arguedate: | December 1 |
Argueyear: | 2014 |
Decidedate: | March 9 |
Decideyear: | 2015 |
Fullname: | Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Mortgage Bankers Association, et al. Jerome Nickols, et al. v. Mortgage Bankers Association |
Docket: | 13-1041 |
Docket2: | 13-1052 |
Usvol: | 575 |
Uspage: | 92 |
Parallelcitations: | 135 S. Ct. 1199; 191 L. Ed. 2d 186 |
Prior: | Mortg. Bankers Ass'n v. Harris, 720 F.3d 966, 405 U.S. App. D.C. 429 (D.C. Cir. 2013) |
Holding: | Notice-and-comment procedures are not required when agencies enact interpretive rules, and they should not be required to make subsequent interpretations. |
Majority: | Sotomayor |
Joinmajority: | Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan; Alito (except Part III–B) |
Concurrence: | Alito (in part) |
Concurrence2: | Scalia (in judgment) |
Concurrence3: | Thomas (in judgment) |
Lawsapplied: | Administrative Procedure Act |
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the D.C. Circuit's Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to a clear reading of the Administrative Procedure Act and "improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the Act's maximum procedural requirements."[1]
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion of the Court.[2]
Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas authored concurring opinions.