News & Analysis as of

Paralyzed Veterans Doctrine

One-Time Anomaly Or Potential Turning Of The Tides? A Review Of The Supreme Court's 2014-2015 Term

by Fisher Phillips on

In a marked departure from the overwhelming success employers experienced before the Supreme Court in recent years, the less successful recently wrapped 2014-2015 term could be an indication that the judicial tides may be...more

Developments in Judicial Deference of Administrative Agency Actions

by Mintz Levin on

In my post of April 2, Divided Supreme Court Restricts Provider Challenges to State Medicaid Rates, I wrote about the March 31st Supreme Court decision that providers may not sue in federal court over the adequacy of state...more

Supreme Court Allows Changes to Agencies’ Interpretive Rules without the Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Process

In March, the Supreme Court upheld an agency’s reversal of its own regulatory interpretation without requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking. Regulated entities now face considerable uncertainty in relying on agencies’...more

How might the Supreme Court’s decision in Perez v. MBA affect the CFPB?

by Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n invalidated a significant line of D.C. Circuit case law known, after the leading case, as the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine. A case involving a series...more

Supreme Court Allows Agencies to Reinterpret the Law at Their Discretion

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

In a decision published on March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ended the D.C. Circuit Court’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which required administrative agencies to utilize the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA)...more

Notice-and-Comment is Not Required for Changes Made to Interpretive Rules

by Nossaman LLP on

On March 9, 2015, Justice Sotomayor, writing on behalf of the majority, overturned the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which requires federal agencies to use a notice-and-comment process before making a significant revision to...more

Federal Bank Supervisory Agencies May Change Guidance Without Notice-and- Comment Rulemaking

by White & Case LLP on

New rulemakings to implement financial reforms leave banking organizations facing a host of uncertainties. Guidance or “interpretative rules” from the financial regulators on the intended scope and application of new rules...more

Supreme Court Holds Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Not Required to Change An Interpretive Rule

by King & Spalding on

When federal agencies change their interpretive rules, they are exempt from the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), says the Supreme Court in its recent ruling in...more

Supreme Court Rules That Agency Interpretive Rules Are Not Subject to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

by Proskauer Rose LLP on

Recently, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgment that government agency "interpretive rules" are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, but cautioned that those same rules do not carry the "force and effect of...more

Supreme Court Confirms That Agency Interpretative Rules Do Not Require Notice and Comment

by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. on

In a March 9, 2015, decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an interpretative rule issued by an administrative agency does not require notice and opportunity for comment,...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Agency Interpretations Are Not Subject To Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Requirement

In 2004, the DOL revamped its regulations regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) administrative exemption. In 2006, the Bush DOL issued an opinion letter finding that mortgage loan officers qualified for the...more

Mortgage Loan Officers are Not Exempt Employees per the DOL and the Supreme Court Says that is Okay

The legal ping-pong match between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) over whether mortgage loan officers are eligible for overtime appears to be at an end. The Supreme Court recently...more

Supreme Court Sides with DOL and Overturns Longstanding DC Circuit Ruling Under Administrative Procedure Act

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., No. 13 1041: On Monday, March 9, 2015, the Court ruled that a longstanding decision from the DC Circuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) was incorrectly decided in contravention...more

Supreme Court Sides with the DOL Regarding Interpretative Rules

by McGuireWoods LLP on

In a unanimous decision on Monday, March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court gave the Department of Labor (DOL) broad discretion to revise interpretive guidance with little notice. ...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That DOL May Change Interpretations of Regulations Without Public Notice and Comment

On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in two consolidated cases that a federal agency does not have to go through the formal rulemaking process, which includes providing public notice and an...more

Supreme Court Authorizes the DOL to Change its Interpretative Guidance without Public Input

by Foley Hoag LLP on

On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, that the Department of Labor (DOL) may issue its interpretations of wage and hour regulations without seeking input from the...more

Supreme Court Removes a Major Hurdle for Administrative Agency Rulemaking

by Epstein Becker & Green on

On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when a federal administrative agency wants to amend or repeal an “interpretive rule,” it does not have to follow the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the...more

Supreme Court Allows Agencies to Re-Interpret Their Regulations Without Rulemaking

by Beveridge & Diamond PC on

On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court wiped away a longstanding judicial doctrine that had placed greater procedural requirements on a federal agency when it changes its prior interpretation of a federal regulation....more

Supreme Court Upholds DOL's Rulemaking Procedure in Reclassifying Mortgage Loan Officers

by FordHarrison on

On March 9, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking when it issues an interpretation of a regulation that is significantly different from its prior...more

Supreme Court Rejects Notice and Comment Rulemaking Requirement for Agency Interpretations

by Franczek Radelet P.C. on

In a case we labeled one of the “cases to watch” this term, a relatively unified Supreme Court decided in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association that a federal agency does not need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more

The Supreme Court Sides with the Department of Labor in "Rulemaking" Challenge

by Littler on

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) a victory in a battle over whether the agency's reversal of its stance on the exempt status of mortgage loan officers was subject to public notice and comment....more

Supreme Court Holds Federal Agencies May Reverse Their Positions Through Informal Guidance

by Faegre Baker Daniels on

On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1041 (Mar. 9, 2015), holding federal administrative agencies may amend or repeal interpretive rules without following...more

Supreme Court Blesses Comment-Free Rulemaking by Administrative Agencies

by Cozen O'Connor on

On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court held that agencies such as the Department of Labor (DOL) are not required to provide a public notice-and-comment period before implementing new interpretive rules, which includes agency...more

Locke Lord QuickStudy: Supreme Court — Mortgage-Loan Officers Not Exempt from Overtime Pay

by Locke Lord LLP on

On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, U.S., No. 13-1041, effectively ended the use of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) administrative exemption for mortgage-loan...more

SCOTUS: Federal Agencies Can Change Interpretive Rules Without Formal Process

by Miller Canfield on

Federal agencies are not required to follow formal notice-and-comment rulemaking when making significant changes to interpretive rules, according to a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association,...more

33 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.