[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [decision, PDF] Monday in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [text, PDF] federal agencies are exempt from notice-and-comment requirements when amending or repealing interpretive rules. In 2006 the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division [official website] issued an opinion letter, at the request of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) [official website], holding that mortgage-loan officers fell within the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act [DOL resources] and regulations promulgated by the Department in 2004. In 2010 the Department of Labor, without following notice-or-comment procedure, withdrew the 2006 opinion letter. The MBA filed suit contending that the repeal of the 2006 opinion letter violated the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures as interpreted by the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit [official website] decision in Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P [text]. In a decision penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court rejected the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, finding it “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.” The court held that because §4 of the APA specifically exempts the promulgation of interpretive rules from notice-and-comment requirements, the section also exempts such requirement for the amending or repealing of interpretive rules.
The Supreme Court has heard arguments in a number of important case this term. Earlier this week the court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] for King v. Burwell [docket]. The court is asked to rule on whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may adopt regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through the federal health insurance exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Also this week the court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in a pair of consolidated cases involving a dispute over federal bankruptcy laws brought by Bank of America (BOA). The cases, Bank of America, NA v. Caulkett and Bank of America, NA v. Toledo-Cardona, stem from the mortgage bubble and collapse of the US housing market.