Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n explained

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]

Opinion of the Court

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion of the Court.[2]

Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas authored concurring opinions.

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.
  2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf