Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. v. MORTGAGE

BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 13–1041. Argued December 1, 2014—Decided March 9, 2015*

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures

federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the

process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C.

§551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called

“legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemak-

ing, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler

Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by con-

trast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction

of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey

Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and-

comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,”

ibid.

In 1999 and 2001, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Divi-

sion issued letters opining that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify

for the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements under

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In 2004, the Department is-

sued new regulations regarding the exemption. Respondent Mort-

gage Bankers Association (MBA) requested a new interpretation of

the revised regulations as they applied to mortgage-loan officers, and

in 2006, the Wage and Hour Division issued an opinion letter finding

that mortgage-loan officers fell within the administrative exemption

under the 2004 regulations. In 2010, the Department again altered

its interpretation of the administrative exemption. Without notice or

an opportunity for comment, the Department withdrew the 2006

——————

* Together with No. 13–1052, Nickols et al. v. Mortgage Bankers As-

sociation, also on certiorari to the same court.

2 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Syllabus

opinion letter and issued an Administrator’s Interpretation conclud-

ing that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative

exemption.

MBA filed suit contending, as relevant here, that the Administra-

tor’s Interpretation was procedurally invalid under the D. C. Circuit’s

decision in Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d

579. The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine holds that an agency must use

the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a

new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a

previously adopted interpretation. The District Court granted sum-

mary judgment to the Department, but the D. C. Circuit applied Par-

alyzed Veterans and reversed.

Held: The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to the clear text of

the APA’s rulemaking provisions and improperly imposes on agencies

an obligation beyond the APA’s maximum procedural requirements.

Pp. 6–14.

(a) The APA’s categorical exemption of interpretive rules from

the notice-and-comment process is fatal to the Paralyzed Veterans

doctrine. The D. C. Circuit’s reading of the APA conflates the differ-

ing purposes of §§1 and 4 of the Act. Section 1 requires agencies to

use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they

used to issue the rule, see 5 U. S. C. §551(5), but it does not say what

procedures an agency must use when it engages in rulemaking. That

is the purpose of §4. And §4 specifically exempts interpretive rules

from notice-and-comment requirements. Because an agency is not

required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial in-

terpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures to

amend or repeal that rule. Pp. 7–8.

(b) This straightforward reading of the APA harmonizes with

longstanding principles of this Court’s administrative law jurispru-

dence, which has consistently held that the APA “sets forth the full

extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for pro-

cedural correctness,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S.

502, 513. The APA’s rulemaking provisions are no exception: §4 es-

tablishes “the maximum procedural requirements” that courts may

impose upon agencies engaged in rulemaking. Vermont Yankee Nu-

clear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435

U. S. 519, 524. By mandating notice-and-comment procedures when

an agency changes its interpretation of one of the regulations it en-

forces, Paralyzed Veterans creates a judge-made procedural right that

is inconsistent with Congress’ standards. Pp. 8–9.

(c) MBA’s reasons for upholding the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine

are unpersuasive. Pp. 9–14.

(1) MBA asserts that an agency interpretation of a regulation

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

Syllabus

that significantly alters the agency’s prior interpretation effectively

amends the underlying regulation. That assertion conflicts with the

ordinary meaning of the words “amend” and “interpret,” and it is im-

possible to reconcile with the longstanding recognition that interpre-

tive rules do not have the force and effect of law. MBA’s theory is

particularly odd in light of the limitations of the Paralyzed Veterans

doctrine, which applies only when an agency has previously adopted

an interpretation of its regulation. MBA fails to explain why its ar-

gument regarding revised interpretations should not also extend to

the agency’s first interpretation. Christensen v. Harris County, 529

U. S. 576, and Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87,

distinguished. Pp. 9–12.

(2) MBA also contends that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine re-

inforces the APA’s goal of procedural fairness. But the APA already

provides recourse to regulated entities from agency decisions that

skirt notice-and-comment provisions by placing a variety of con-

straints on agency decisionmaking, e.g., the arbitrary and capricious

standard. In addition, Congress may include safe-harbor provisions

in legislation to shelter regulated entities from liability when they re-

ly on previous agency interpretations. See, e.g., 29 U. S. C. §§259(a),

(b)(1). Pp. 12–13.

(3) MBA has waived its argument that the 2010 Administra-

tor’s Interpretation should be classified as a legislative rule. From

the beginning, this suit has been litigated on the understanding that

the Administrator’s Interpretation is an interpretive rule. Neither

the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed this argument

below, and MBA did not raise it here in opposing certiorari. P. 14.

720 F. 3d 966, reversed.

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in

which ALITO, J., joined except for Part III–B. ALITO, J., filed an opinion

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., and

THOMAS, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 13–1041 and 13–1052

_________________

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

13–1041 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS

13–1052 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2015]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule

interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not

required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking

procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or

Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has never-

theless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed

Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997),

that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment

procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of

a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency

has previously adopted. The question in these cases is

whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is

consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not.

2 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

I

A

The APA establishes the procedures federal administra-

tive agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process

of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” §551(5).

“Rule,” in turn, is defined broadly to include “statement[s]

of general or particular applicability and future effect”

that are designed to “implement, interpret, or prescribe

law or policy.” §551(4).

Section 4 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §553, prescribes a three-

step procedure for so-called “notice-and-comment rulemak-

ing.” First, the agency must issue a “[g]eneral notice of

proposed rule making,” ordinarily by publication in the

Federal Register. §553(b). Second, if “notice [is] re-

quired,” the agency must “give interested persons an

opportunity to participate in the rule making through

submission of written data, views, or arguments.” §553(c).

An agency must consider and respond to significant com-

ments received during the period for public comment. See

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S.

402, 416 (1971); Thompson v. Clark, 741 F. 2d 401, 408

(CADC 1984). Third, when the agency promulgates the

final rule, it must include in the rule’s text “a concise

general statement of [its] basis and purpose.” §553(c).

Rules issued through the notice-and-comment process are

often referred to as “legislative rules” because they have

the “force and effect of law.” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,

441 U. S. 281, 302–303 (1979) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Not all “rules” must be issued through the notice-and-

comment process. Section 4(b)(A) of the APA provides

that, unless another statute states otherwise, the notice-

and-comment requirement “does not apply” to “interpreta-

tive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U. S. C.

§553(b)(A). The term “interpretative rule,” or “interpre-

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

Opinion of the Court

tive rule,”1 is not further defined by the APA, and its

precise meaning is the source of much scholarly and judi-

cial debate. See generally Pierce, Distinguishing Legisla-

tive Rules From Interpretative Rules, 52 Admin. L. Rev.

547 (2000); Manning, Nonlegislative Rules, 72 Geo. Wash.

L. Rev. 893 (2004). We need not, and do not, wade into

that debate here. For our purposes, it suffices to say that

the critical feature of interpretive rules is that they are

“issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency’s

construction of the statutes and rules which it adminis-

ters.” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S.

87, 99 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). The

absence of a notice-and-comment obligation makes the

process of issuing interpretive rules comparatively easier

for agencies than issuing legislative rules. But that con-

venience comes at a price: Interpretive rules “do not have

the force and effect of law and are not accorded that

weight in the adjudicatory process.” Ibid.

B

These cases began as a dispute over efforts by the De-

partment of Labor to determine whether mortgage-loan

officers are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act of

1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §201

et seq. The FLSA “establishe[s] a minimum wage and

overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of

40 hours in each workweek” for many employees. Integ-

rity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U. S. ___, ___

(2014) (slip op., at 3). Certain classes of employees, how-

ever, are exempt from these provisions. Among these

exempt individuals are those “employed in a bona fide

executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or

in the capacity of outside salesman . . . .” §213(a)(1). The

——————

1 The latter is the more common phrasing today, and the one we use

throughout this opinion.

4 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

exemption for such employees is known as the “adminis-

trative” exemption.

The FLSA grants the Secretary of Labor authority to

“defin[e]” and “delimi[t]” the categories of exempt admin-

istrative employees. Ibid. The Secretary’s current regu-

lations regarding the administrative exemption were

promulgated in 2004 through a notice-and-comment

rulemaking. As relevant here, the 2004 regulations dif-

fered from the previous regulations in that they contained

a new section providing several examples of exempt ad-

ministrative employees. See 29 CFR §541.203. One of the

examples is “[e]mployees in the financial services indus-

try,” who, depending on the nature of their day-to-day

work, “generally meet the duties requirements for the

administrative exception.” §541.203(b). The financial

services example ends with a caveat, noting that “an

employee whose primary duty is selling financial products

does not qualify for the administrative exemption.” Ibid.

In 1999 and again in 2001, the Department’s Wage and

Hour Division issued letters opining that mortgage-loan

officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption.

See Opinion Letter, Loan Officers/Exempt Status, 6A

LRR, Wages and Hours Manual 99:8351 (Feb. 16, 2001);

Opinion Letter, Mortgage Loan Officers/Exempt Status,

id., at 99:8249. (May 17, 1999). In other words, the De-

partment concluded that the FLSA’s minimum wage and

maximum hour requirements applied to mortgage-loan

officers. When the Department promulgated its current

FLSA regulations in 2004, respondent Mortgage Bankers

Association (MBA), a national trade association represent-

ing real estate finance companies, requested a new opinion

interpreting the revised regulations. In 2006, the De-

partment issued an opinion letter finding that mortgage-

loan officers fell within the administrative exemption

under the 2004 regulations. See App. to Pet. for Cert. in

No. 13–1041, pp. 70a–84a. Four years later, however, the

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 5

Opinion of the Court

Wage and Hour Division again altered its interpretation of

the FLSA’s administrative exemption as it applied to

mortgage-loan officers. Id., at 49a–69a. Reviewing the

provisions of the 2004 regulations and judicial decisions

addressing the administrative exemption, the Depart-

ment’s 2010 Administrator’s Interpretation concluded that

mortgage-loan officers “have a primary duty of making

sales for their employers, and, therefore, do not qualify”

for the administrative exemption. Id., at 49a, 69a. The

Department accordingly withdrew its 2006 opinion letter,

which it now viewed as relying on “misleading assump-

tion[s] and selective and narrow analysis” of the exemp-

tion example in §541.203(b). Id., at 68a. Like the 1999,

2001, and 2006 opinion letters, the 2010 Administrator’s

Interpretation was issued without notice or an opportunity

for comment.

C

MBA filed a complaint in Federal District Court chal-

lenging the Administrator’s Interpretation. MBA con-

tended that the document was inconsistent with the 2004

regulation it purported to interpret, and thus arbitrary

and capricious in violation of §10 of the APA, 5 U. S. C.

§706. More pertinent to this case, MBA also argued that

the Administrator’s Interpretation was procedurally in-

valid in light of the D. C. Circuit’s decision in Paralyzed

Veterans, 117 F. 3d 579. Under the Paralyzed Veterans

doctrine, if “an agency has given its regulation a definitive

interpretation, and later significantly revises that inter-

pretation, the agency has in effect amended its rule, some-

thing it may not accomplish” under the APA “without

notice and comment.” Alaska Professional Hunters Assn.,

Inc. v. FAA, 177 F. 3d 1030, 1034 (CADC 1999). Three

former mortgage-loan officers—Beverly Buck, Ryan Henry,

and Jerome Nickols—subsequently intervened in the

6 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

case to defend the Administrator’s Interpretation.2

The District Court granted summary judgment to the

Department. Mortgage Bankers Assn. v. Solis, 864

F. Supp. 2d 193 (DC 2012). Though it accepted the par-

ties’ characterization of the Administrator’s Interpretation

as an interpretive rule, id., at 203, n. 7, the District Court

determined that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine was

inapplicable because MBA had failed to establish its reli-

ance on the contrary interpretation expressed in the De-

partment’s 2006 opinion letter. The Administrator’s In-

terpretation, the District Court further determined, was

fully supported by the text of the 2004 FLSA regulations.

The court accordingly held that the 2010 interpretation

was not arbitrary or capricious.3

The D. C. Circuit reversed. Mortgage Bankers Assn. v.

Harris, 720 F. 3d 966 (2013). Bound to the rule of Para-

lyzed Veterans by precedent, the Court of Appeals rejected

the Government’s call to abandon the doctrine. 720 F. 3d.,

at 967, n. 1. In the court’s view, “[t]he only question”

properly before it was whether the District Court had

erred in requiring MBA to prove that it relied on the

Department’s prior interpretation. Id., at 967. Explaining

that reliance was not a required element of the Paralyzed

Veterans doctrine, and noting the Department’s concession

that a prior, conflicting interpretation of the 2004 regula-

tions existed, the D. C. Circuit concluded that the 2010

Administrator’s Interpretation had to be vacated.

We granted certiorari, 573 U. S. __ (2014), and now

reverse.

II

The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to the clear

——————

2 Buck,

Henry, and Nickols are petitioners in No. 13–1052 and re-

spondents in No. 13–1041.

3 MBA did not challenge this aspect of the District Court’s decision on

appeal.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 7

Opinion of the Court

text of the APA’s rulemaking provisions, and it improperly

imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the “maximum

procedural requirements” specified in the APA, Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524 (1978).

A

The text of the APA answers the question presented.

Section 4 of the APA provides that “notice of proposed rule

making shall be published in the Federal Register.” 5

U. S. C. §553(b). When such notice is required by the

APA, “the agency shall give interested persons an oppor-

tunity to participate in the rule making.” §553(c). But §4

further states that unless “notice or hearing is required by

statute,” the Act’s notice-and-comment requirement “does

not apply . . . to interpretative rules.” §553(b)(A). This

exemption of interpretive rules from the notice-and-

comment process is categorical, and it is fatal to the rule

announced in Paralyzed Veterans.

Rather than examining the exemption for interpretive

rules contained in §4(b)(A) of the APA, the D. C. Circuit in

Paralyzed Veterans focused its attention on §1 of the Act.

That section defines “rule making” to include not only the

initial issuance of new rules, but also “repeal[s]” or

“amend[ments]” of existing rules. See §551(5). Because

notice-and-comment requirements may apply even to

these later agency actions, the court reasoned, “allow[ing]

an agency to make a fundamental change in its interpre-

tation of a substantive regulation without notice and

comment” would undermine the APA’s procedural frame-

work. 117 F. 3d, at 586.

This reading of the APA conflates the differing purposes

of §§1 and 4 of the Act. Section 1 defines what a rule-

making is. It does not, however, say what procedures an

agency must use when it engages in rulemaking. That is

the purpose of §4. And §4 specifically exempts interpretive

8 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

rules from the notice-and-comment requirements that

apply to legislative rules. So, the D. C. Circuit correctly

read §1 of the APA to mandate that agencies use the same

procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used

to issue the rule in the first instance. See FCC v. Fox

Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 515 (2009) (the

APA “make[s] no distinction . . . between initial agency

action and subsequent agency action undoing or revising

that action”). Where the court went wrong was in failing

to apply that accurate understanding of §1 to the exemp-

tion for interpretive rules contained in §4: Because an

agency is not required to use notice-and-comment proce-

dures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not

required to use those procedures when it amends or re-

peals that interpretive rule.

B

The straightforward reading of the APA we now adopt

harmonizes with longstanding principles of our adminis-

trative law jurisprudence. Time and again, we have reit-

erated that the APA “sets forth the full extent of judicial

authority to review executive agency action for procedural

correctness.” Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S., at

513. Beyond the APA’s minimum requirements, courts

lack authority “to impose upon [an] agency its own notion

of which procedures are ‘best’ or most likely to further

some vague, undefined public good.” Vermont Yankee, 435

U. S., at 549. To do otherwise would violate “the very

basic tenet of administrative law that agencies should be

free to fashion their own rules of procedure.” Id., at 544.

These foundational principles apply with equal force to

the APA’s procedures for rulemaking. We explained in

Vermont Yankee that §4 of the Act “established the maxi-

mum procedural requirements which Congress was willing

to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting

rulemaking procedures.” Id., at 524. “Agencies are free to

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 9

Opinion of the Court

grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their

discretion, but reviewing courts are generally not free to

impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant

them.” Ibid.

The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine creates just such a

judge-made procedural right: the right to notice and an

opportunity to comment when an agency changes its

interpretation of one of the regulations it enforces. That

requirement may be wise policy. Or it may not. Regard-

less, imposing such an obligation is the responsibility of

Congress or the administrative agencies, not the courts.

We trust that Congress weighed the costs and benefits of

placing more rigorous procedural restrictions on the issu-

ance of interpretive rules. See id., at 523 (when Congress

enacted the APA, it “settled long-continued and hard-

fought contentions, and enact[ed] a formula upon which

opposing social and political forces have come to rest”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). In the end, Congress

decided to adopt standards that permit agencies to prom-

ulgate freely such rules—whether or not they are con-

sistent with earlier interpretations. That the D. C. Circuit

would have struck the balance differently does not permit

that court or this one to overturn Congress’ contrary

judgment. Cf. Law v. Siegel, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip

op., at 11).

III

MBA offers several reasons why the Paralyzed Veterans

doctrine should be upheld. They are not persuasive.

A

MBA begins its defense of the Paralyzed Veterans doc-

trine by attempting to bolster the D. C. Circuit’s reading of

the APA. “Paralyzed Veterans,” MBA contends, “simply

acknowledges the reality that where an agency significantly

alters a prior, definitive interpretation of a regulation, it

10 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

has effectively amended the regulation itself,” something

that under the APA requires use of notice-and-comment

procedures. Brief for Respondent 20–21.

The act of “amending,” however, in both ordinary par-

lance and legal usage, has its own meaning separate and

apart from the act of “interpreting.” Compare Black’s Law

Dictionary 98 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “amend” as “[t]o

change the wording of ” or “formally alter . . . by striking

out, inserting, or substituting words”), with id., at 943

(defining “interpret” as “[t]o ascertain the meaning and

significance of thoughts expressed in words”). One would

not normally say that a court “amends” a statute when it

interprets its text. So too can an agency “interpret” a

regulation without “effectively amend[ing]” the underlying

source of law. MBA does not explain how, precisely, an

interpretive rule changes the regulation it interprets, and

its assertion is impossible to reconcile with the longstand-

ing recognition that interpretive rules do not have the

force and effect of law. See Chrysler Corp., 441 U. S., at

302, n. 31 (citing Attorney General’s Manual on the Ad-

ministrative Procedure Act 30, n. 3 (1947)); Skidmore v.

Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).

MBA’s “interpretation-as-amendment” theory is particu-

larly odd in light of the limitations of the Paralyzed Veter-

ans doctrine. Recall that the rule of Paralyzed Veterans

applies only when an agency has previously adopted an

interpretation of its regulation. Yet in that initial inter-

pretation as much as all that come after, the agency is

giving a definite meaning to an ambiguous text—the very

act MBA insists requires notice and comment. MBA is

unable to say why its arguments regarding revised inter-

pretations should not also extend to the agency’s first

interpretation.4

——————

4 MBA alternatively suggests that interpretive rules have the force of

law because an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations may be

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 11

Opinion of the Court

Next, MBA argues that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine

is more consistent with this Court’s “functional” approach

to interpreting the APA. Relying on Christensen v. Harris

County, 529 U. S. 576 (2000), and Shalala v. Guernsey

Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, MBA contends that we

have already recognized that an agency may not “avoid

notice-and-comment procedures by cloaking its actions in

the mantle of mere ‘interpretation.’ ” Brief for Respondent

23–24.

Neither of the cases MBA cites supports its argument.

Our decision in Christensen did not address a change in

agency interpretation. Instead, we there refused to give

deference to an agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous

regulation, observing that to defer in such a case would

allow the agency “to create de facto a new regulation.” 529

U. S., at 588. Put differently, Christensen held that the

agency interpretation at issue was substantively invalid

because it conflicted with the text of the regulation the

agency purported to interpret. That holding is irrelevant

to this suit and to the Paralyzed Veterans rule, which

assesses whether an agency interpretation is procedurally

invalid.

——————

entitled to deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997), and

Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945). Even in

cases where an agency’s interpretation receives Auer deference, how-

ever, it is the court that ultimately decides whether a given regulation

means what the agency says. Moreover, Auer deference is not an

inexorable command in all cases. See Christopher v. SmithKline

Beecham Corp., 567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 10) (Auer defer-

ence is inappropriate “when the agency’s interpretation is plainly

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation” or “when there is reason

to suspect that the agency’s interpretation does not reflect the agency’s

fair and considered judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted));

Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 515 (1994) (“[A]n

agency’s interpretation of a . . . regulation that conflicts with a prior

interpretation is entitled to considerably less deference than a consist-

ently held agency view” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

12 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

As for Guernsey, that case is fully consistent with—

indeed, confirms—what the text of the APA makes plain:

“Interpretive rules do not require notice and comment.”

514 U. S., at 99. Sidestepping this inconvenient language,

MBA instead quotes a portion of the Court’s opinion stat-

ing that “APA rulemaking would still be required if [an

agency] adopted a new position inconsistent with . . .

existing regulations.” Id., at 100. But the statement on

which MBA relies is dictum. Worse, it is dictum taken out

of context. The “regulations” to which the Court referred

were two provisions of the Medicare reimbursement

scheme. And it is apparent from the Court’s description of

these regulations in Part II of the opinion that they were

legislative rules, issued through the notice-and-comment

process. See id., at 91–92 (noting that the disputed regu-

lations were codified in the Code of Federal Regulations).

Read properly, then, the cited passage from Guernsey

merely means that “an agency may only change its inter-

pretation if the revised interpretation is consistent with

the underlying regulations.” Brief for Petitioners in No.

13–1052, p. 44.

B

In the main, MBA attempts to justify the Paralyzed

Veterans doctrine on practical and policy grounds. MBA

contends that the doctrine reinforces the APA’s goal of

“procedural fairness” by preventing agencies from unilat-

erally and unexpectedly altering their interpretation of

important regulations. Brief for Respondent 16.

There may be times when an agency’s decision to issue

an interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, is

driven primarily by a desire to skirt notice-and-comment

provisions. But regulated entities are not without re-

course in such situations. Quite the opposite. The APA

contains a variety of constraints on agency decisionmak-

ing—the arbitrary and capricious standard being among

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 13

Opinion of the Court

the most notable. As we held in Fox Television Stations,

and underscore again today, the APA requires an agency

to provide more substantial justification when “its new

policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those

which underlay its prior policy; or when its prior policy

has engendered serious reliance interests that must be

taken into account. It would be arbitrary and capricious

to ignore such matters.” 556 U. S., at 515 (citation omit-

ted); see also id., at 535 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part

and concurring in judgment).

In addition, Congress is aware that agencies sometimes

alter their views in ways that upset settled reliance inter-

ests. For that reason, Congress sometimes includes in the

statutes it drafts safe-harbor provisions that shelter regu-

lated entities from liability when they act in conformance

with previous agency interpretations. The FLSA includes

one such provision: As amended by the Portal-to-Portal

Act of 1947, 29 U. S. C. §251 et seq., the FLSA provides

that “no employer shall be subject to any liability” for

failing “to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation”

if it demonstrates that the “act or omission complained of

was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on

any written administrative regulation, order, ruling,

approval, or interpretation” of the Administrator of the

Department’s Wage and Hour Division, even when the

guidance is later “modified or rescinded.” §§259(a), (b)(1).

These safe harbors will often protect parties from liability

when an agency adopts an interpretation that conflicts

with its previous position.5

——————

5 The United States acknowledged at argument that even in situa-

tions where a statute does not contain a safe-harbor provision similar

to the one included in the FLSA, an agency’s ability to pursue enforce-

ment actions against regulated entities for conduct in conformance with

prior agency interpretations may be limited by principles of retroactiv-

ity. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 44–45. We have no occasion to consider how

such principles might apply here.

14 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

C

MBA changes direction in the second half of its brief,

contending that if the Court overturns the Paralyzed

Veterans rule, the D. C. Circuit’s judgment should none-

theless be affirmed. That is so, MBA says, because the

agency interpretation at issue—the 2010 Administrator’s

Interpretation—should in fact be classified as a legislative

rule.

We will not address this argument. From the begin-

ning, the parties litigated this suit on the understanding

that the Administrator’s Interpretation was—as its name

suggests—an interpretive rule. Indeed, if MBA did not

think the Administrator’s Interpretation was an interpre-

tive rule, then its decision to invoke the Paralyzed Veter-

ans doctrine in attacking the rule is passing strange.

After all, Paralyzed Veterans applied only to interpretive

rules. Consequently, neither the District Court nor the

D. C. Circuit considered MBA’s current claim that the

Administrator’s Interpretation is actually a legislative

rule. Beyond that, and more important still, MBA’s brief

in opposition to certiorari did not dispute petitioners’

assertions—in their framing of the question presented and

in the substance of their petitions—that the Administra-

tor’s Interpretation is an interpretive rule. Thus, even

assuming MBA did not waive the argument below, it has

done so in this Court. See this Court’s Rule 15.2; Carcieri

v. Salazar, 555 U. S. 379, 395–396 (2009).

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-

cuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

Opinion of ALITO, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 13–1041 and 13–1052

_________________

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

13–1041 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS

13–1052 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2015]

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment.

I join the opinion of the Court except for Part III–B. I

agree that the doctrine of Paralyzed Veterans of America v.

D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (CADC 1997), is incom-

patible with the Administrative Procedure Act. The crea-

tion of that doctrine may have been prompted by an un-

derstandable concern about the aggrandizement of the

power of administrative agencies as a result of the com-

bined effect of (1) the effective delegation to agencies by

Congress of huge swaths of lawmaking authority, (2) the

exploitation by agencies of the uncertain boundary be-

tween legislative and interpretive rules, and (3) this

Court’s cases holding that courts must ordinarily defer to

an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regula-

tions. See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S.

410 (1945). I do not dismiss these concerns, but the Para-

lyzed Veterans doctrine is not a viable cure for these prob-

2 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

Opinion of ALITO, J.

lems. At least one of the three factors noted above, how-

ever, concerns a matter that can be addressed by this

Court. The opinions of JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE

THOMAS offer substantial reasons why the Seminole Rock

doctrine may be incorrect. See also Christopher v.

SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2012)

(slip op., at 13–14) (citing, inter alia, Manning, Constitu-

tional Structure and Judicial Deference to Agency Inter-

pretations of Agency Rules, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 612 (1996)).

I await a case in which the validity of Seminole Rock may

be explored through full briefing and argument.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 13–1041 and 13–1052

_________________

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

13–1041 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS

13–1052 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2015]

JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court’s decision, and all of its reasoning

demonstrating the incompatibility of the D. C. Circuit’s

Paralyzed Veterans holding with the Administrative Pro-

cedure Act. Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L.P.,

117 F. 3d 579 (CADC 1997). I do not agree, however, with

the Court’s portrayal of the result it produces as a vindica-

tion of the balance Congress struck when it “weighed the

costs and benefits of placing more rigorous . . . restrictions

on the issuance of interpretive rules.” Ante, at 9. That

depiction is accurate enough if one looks at this case in

isolation. Considered alongside our law of deference to

administrative determinations, however, today’s decision

produces a balance between power and procedure quite

different from the one Congress chose when it enacted the

APA.

“The [APA] was framed against a background of rapid

expansion of the administrative process as a check upon

2 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried

them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating

their offices.” United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S.

632, 644 (1950). The Act guards against excesses in rule-

making by requiring notice and comment. Before an

agency makes a rule, it normally must notify the public of

the proposal, invite them to comment on its shortcomings,

consider and respond to their arguments, and explain its

final decision in a statement of the rule’s basis and pur-

pose. 5 U. S. C. §553(b)–(c); ante, at 2.

The APA exempts interpretive rules from these re-

quirements. §553(b)(A). But this concession to agencies

was meant to be more modest in its effects than it is today.

For despite exempting interpretive rules from notice and

comment, the Act provides that “the reviewing court

shall . . . interpret constitutional and statutory provisions,

and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of

an agency action.” §706 (emphasis added). The Act thus

contemplates that courts, not agencies, will authoritatively

resolve ambiguities in statutes and regulations. In such

a regime, the exemption for interpretive rules does not add

much to agency power. An agency may use interpretive

rules to advise the public by explaining its interpretation

of the law. But an agency may not use interpretive rules

to bind the public by making law, because it remains the

responsibility of the court to decide whether the law

means what the agency says it means.

Heedless of the original design of the APA, we have

developed an elaborate law of deference to agencies’ inter-

pretations of statutes and regulations. Never mentioning

§706’s directive that the “reviewing court . . . interpret . . .

statutory provisions,” we have held that agencies may

authoritatively resolve ambiguities in statutes. Chevron

U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

467 U. S. 837, 842–843 (1984). And never mentioning

§706’s directive that the “reviewing court . . . determine

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency

action,” we have—relying on a case decided before the

APA, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410

(1945)—held that agencies may authoritatively resolve

ambiguities in regulations. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S.

452, 461 (1997).

By supplementing the APA with judge-made doctrines

of deference, we have revolutionized the import of inter-

pretive rules’ exemption from notice-and-comment rule-

making. Agencies may now use these rules not just to

advise the public, but also to bind them. After all, if an

interpretive rule gets deference, the people are bound to

obey it on pain of sanction, no less surely than they are

bound to obey substantive rules, which are accorded simi-

lar deference. Interpretive rules that command deference

do have the force of law.

The Court’s reasons for resisting this obvious point

would not withstand a gentle breeze. Even when an agen-

cy’s interpretation gets deference, the Court argues, “it is

the court that ultimately decides whether [the text] means

what the agency says.” Ante, at 10–11, n. 4. That is not

quite so. So long as the agency does not stray beyond the

ambiguity in the text being interpreted, deference compels

the reviewing court to “decide” that the text means what

the agency says. The Court continues that “deference is

not an inexorable command in all cases,” because (for

example) it does not apply to plainly erroneous interpreta-

tions. Ibid. True, but beside the point. Saying all inter-

pretive rules lack force of law because plainly erroneous

interpretations do not bind courts is like saying all sub-

stantive rules lack force of law because arbitrary and

capricious rules do not bind courts. Of course an interpre-

tive rule must meet certain conditions before it gets defer-

ence—the interpretation must, for instance, be reason-

able—but once it does so it is every bit as binding as a

substantive rule. So the point stands: By deferring to

4 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

interpretive rules, we have allowed agencies to make

binding rules unhampered by notice-and-comment

procedures.

The problem is bad enough, and perhaps insoluble if

Chevron is not to be uprooted, with respect to interpretive

rules setting forth agency interpretation of statutes. But

an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is an-

other matter. By giving that category of interpretive rules

Auer deference, we do more than allow the agency to make

binding regulations without notice and comment. Because

the agency (not Congress) drafts the substantive rules

that are the object of those interpretations, giving them

deference allows the agency to control the extent of its

notice-and-comment-free domain. To expand this domain,

the agency need only write substantive rules more

broadly and vaguely, leaving plenty of gaps to be filled in

later, using interpretive rules unchecked by notice and

comment. The APA does not remotely contemplate this

regime.

Still and all, what are we to do about the problem? The

Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is a courageous (indeed,

brazen) attempt to limit the mischief by requiring an

interpretive rule to go through notice and comment if it

revises an earlier definitive interpretation of a regulation.

That solution is unlawful for the reasons set forth in the

Court’s opinion: It contradicts the APA’s unqualified ex-

emption of interpretive rules from notice-and-comment

rulemaking.

But I think there is another solution—one unavailable

to the D. C. Circuit since it involves the overruling of one

this Court’s decisions (that being even a greater fault than

merely ignoring the APA). As I have described elsewhere,

the rule of Chevron, if it did not comport with the APA, at

least was in conformity with the long history of judicial

review of executive action, where “[s]tatutory ambiguities

. . . were left to reasonable resolution by the Executive.”

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 5

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 243 (2001)

(SCALIA, J., dissenting). I am unaware of any such history

justifying deference to agency interpretations of its own

regulations. And there are weighty reasons to deny a

lawgiver the power to write ambiguous laws and then be

the judge of what the ambiguity means. See Decker v.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U. S. ___,

___–___ (2013) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissent-

ing in part) (slip op., at 1–7). I would therefore restore the

balance originally struck by the APA with respect to an

agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, not by

rewriting the Act in order to make up for Auer, but by

abandoning Auer and applying the Act as written. The

agency is free to interpret its own regulations with or

without notice and comment; but courts will decide—with

no deference to the agency—whether that interpretation is

correct.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 13–1041 and 13–1052

_________________

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

13–1041 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

JEROME NICKOLS, ET AL., PETITIONERS

13–1052 v.

MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[March 9, 2015]

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the Court’s holding that the doctrine first

announced in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D. C.

Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (CADC 1997), is inconsistent

with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C.

§551 et seq., and must be rejected. An agency’s substantial

revision of its interpretation of a regulation does not

amount to an “amendment” of the regulation as that word

is used in the statute.

I write separately because these cases call into question

the legitimacy of our precedents requiring deference to

administrative interpretations of regulations. That line of

precedents, beginning with Bowles v. Seminole Rock &

Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945), requires judges to defer to

agency interpretations of regulations, thus, as happened

in these cases, giving legal effect to the interpretations

rather than the regulations themselves. Because this

doctrine effects a transfer of the judicial power to an exec-

2 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

utive agency, it raises constitutional concerns. This line of

precedents undermines our obligation to provide a judicial

check on the other branches, and it subjects regulated

parties to precisely the abuses that the Framers sought to

prevent.

I

The doctrine of deference to an agency’s interpretation

of regulations is usually traced back to this Court’s deci-

sion in Seminole Rock, supra, which involved the interpre-

tation of a war-time price control regulation, id., at 411.

Along with a general price freeze, the Administrator of the

Office of Price Administration had promulgated special-

ized regulations governing the maximum price for differ-

ent commodities. Id., at 413. When the Administrator

brought an enforcement action against a manufacturer of

crushed stone, the manufacturer challenged the Adminis-

trator’s interpretation of his regulations.

The lower courts agreed with the manufacturer’s inter-

pretation, id., at 412–413, but this Court reversed. In

setting out the approach it would apply to the case, the

Court announced—without citation or explanation—that

an administrative interpretation of an ambiguous regula-

tion was entitled to “controlling weight”:

“Since this involves an interpretation of an adminis-

trative regulation a court must necessarily look to the

administrative construction of the regulation if the

meaning of the words used is in doubt. The intention

of Congress or the principles of the Constitution in

some situations may be relevant in the first instance

in choosing between various constructions. But the

ultimate criterion is the administrative interpreta-

tion, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is

plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”

Id., at 413–414.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

The Court then concluded that the rule “clearly” favored

the Administrator’s interpretation, rendering this discus-

sion dictum. Id., at 415–417.

From this unsupported rule developed a doctrine of

deference that has taken on a life of its own.1 It has been

broadly applied to regulations issued by agencies across a

broad spectrum of subjects. See, e.g., Robertson v. Methow

Valley Citizens Council, 490 U. S. 332, 358–359 (1989)

(forests); Ehlert v. United States, 402 U. S. 99, 104–105

(1971) (Selective Service); INS v. Stanisic, 395 U. S. 62, 72

(1969) (deportation); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16–17

(1965) (oil and gas leases). It has even been applied to an

agency’s interpretation of another agency’s regulations.

See Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 696–

699 (1991). And, it has been applied to an agency inter-

pretation that was inconsistent with a previous interpre-

tation of the same regulation. See Long Island Care at

Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U. S. 158, 170–171 (2007). It has

been applied to formal and informal interpretations alike,

including those taken during litigation. See Auer v. Rob-

bins, 519 U. S. 452, 462 (1997). Its reasoning has also

been extended outside the context of traditional agency

regulations into the realm of criminal sentencing. See

Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 44–45 (1993) (con-

cluding that the Sentencing Commission’s commentary on

its Guidelines is analogous to an agency interpretation of

its own regulations, entitled to Seminole Rock deference).

The Court has even applied the doctrine to an agency

interpretation of a regulation cast in such vague aspira-

tional terms as to have no substantive content. See

——————

1 Although the Court has appeared to treat our agency deference

regimes as precedents entitled to stare decisis effect, some scholars

have noted that they might instead be classified as interpretive tools.

See, e.g., C. Nelson, Statutory Interpretation 701 (2011). Such tools

might not be entitled to such effect. Because resolution of that issue is

not necessary to my conclusion here, I leave it for another day.

4 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512–513

(1994); see also id., at 518 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).

On this steady march toward deference, the Court only

once expressly declined to apply Seminole Rock deference

on the ground that the agency’s interpretation was plainly

erroneous.2 In that case, we were faced with the predict-

able consequence of this line of precedents: An agency

sought deference to an opinion letter that interpreted a

permissive regulation as mandatory. See Christensen v.

Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 588 (2000). We rejected that

request for deference as an effort, “under the guise of

interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regula-

tion.” Ibid. This narrow limit on the broad deference

given the agency interpretations, though sound, could not

save a doctrine that was constitutionally infirm from the

start. Seminole Rock was constitutionally suspect from

the start, and this Court’s repeated extensions of it have

only magnified the effects and the attendant concerns.

——————

2 The Court has also twice expressly found Seminole Rock deference

inapplicable for other reasons. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham

Corp., 567 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2012) (slip op., at 13–14) (“[W]here, as

here, an agency’s announcement of its interpretation is preceded by a

very lengthy period of conspicuous inaction, the potential for unfair

surprise is acute. . . . [W]hatever the general merits of Auer deference,

it is unwarranted here”); Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 256–257

(2006) (“In our view Auer and the standard of deference it accords to an

agency are inapplicable here. . . . The language the Interpretive Rule

addresses comes from Congress, not the Attorney General, and the near

equivalence of the statute and regulation belies the Government’s

argument for Auer deference”).

Occasionally, Members of this Court have argued in separate writ-

ings that the Court failed appropriately to apply Seminole Rock defer-

ence, but in none of those cases did the majority opinions of the Court

expressly refuse to do so. See Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U. S. 40

(2005); Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U. S. 359

(1998); Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Green-

wich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267 (1994); United States v. Swank, 451 U. S.

571 (1981); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331 (1955).

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015)

5

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

II

We have not always been vigilant about protecting the

structure of our Constitution. Although this Court has

repeatedly invoked the “separation of powers” and “the

constitutional system of checks and balances” as core

principles of our constitutional design, essential to the

protection of individual liberty, see, e.g., Stern v. Marshall,

564 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2011) (slip op., at 16–17) (internal

quotation marks omitted), it has also endorsed a “more

pragmatic, flexible approach” to that design when it has

seemed more convenient to permit the powers to be mixed,

see, e.g., Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433

U. S. 425, 442 (1977). As the history shows, that approach

runs the risk of compromising our constitutional

structure.

A

The Constitution’s particular blend of separated powers

and checks and balances was informed by centuries of

political thought and experiences. See M. Vile, Constitu-

tionalism and the Separation of Powers 38, 168–169 (2d

ed. 1998) (Vile). Though the theories of the separation of

powers and checks and balances have roots in the ancient

world, events of the 17th and 18th centuries played a

crucial role in their development and informed the men

who crafted and ratified the Constitution.

Over a century before our War of Independence, the

English Civil War catapulted the theory of the separation

of powers to prominence. As political theorists of the day

witnessed the conflict between the King and Parliament,

and the dangers of tyrannical government posed by each,

they began to call for a clear division of authority between

the two. Id., at 44–45, 48–49. A 1648 work titled The

Royalist’s Defence offered perhaps the first extended

account of the theory of the separation of powers:

“[W]hilst the Supreamacy, the Power to Judge the Law,

6 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

and Authority to make new Lawes, are kept in severall

hands, the known Law is preserved, but united, it is van-

ished, instantly thereupon, and Arbytrary and Tyrannicall

power is introduced.” The Royalist’s Defence 80 (1648)

(italics in original).

John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu endorsed and

expanded on this concept. See Vile 63–64. They agreed

with the general theory set forth in The Royalist’s De-

fence, emphasizing the need for a separation of powers to

protect individual liberty. J. Locke, Second Treatise of

Civil Government §§143–144, p. 72 (J. Gough ed. 1947);

Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws bk. XI, ch. 6, pp. 151–152

(O. Piest ed., T. Nugent transl. 1949). But they also advo-

cated a system of checks and balances to reinforce that

separation. Vile 72–73, 102. For instance, they agreed

that the executive should have the power to assemble and

dismiss the legislature and to consent to laws passed by it.

See Locke, supra, §§151, 156, at 75, 77–78; Montesquieu,

Spirit of the Laws, at 157, 159. Montesquieu warned that

“power should be a check to power” lest the legislature

“arrogate to itself what authority it pleased . . . [and] soon

destroy all the other powers.” Id., at 150, 157.

The experience of the States during the period between

the War of Independence and the ratification of the Con-

stitution confirmed the wisdom of combining these theo-

ries. Although many State Constitutions of the time

included language unequivocally endorsing the separation

of powers, they did not secure that separation with checks

and balances, Vile 147, and actively placed traditional

executive and judicial functions in the legislature,

G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–

1787, pp. 155–156 (1969). Under these arrangements,

state legislatures arrogated power to themselves and

began to confiscate property, approve the printing of paper

money, and suspend the ordinary means for the recovery

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 7

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

of debts. Id., at 403–409.3

When the Framers met for the Constitutional Conven-

tion, they understood the need for greater checks and

balances to reinforce the separation of powers. As Madi-

son remarked, “experience has taught us a distrust” of the

separation of powers alone as “a sufficient security to each

[branch] [against] encroachments of the others.” 2 Re-

cords of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 77 (M. Farrand

rev. 1966). “[I]t is necessary to introduce such a balance of

powers and interests, as will guarantee the provisions on

paper.” Ibid. The Framers thus separated the three main

powers of Government—legislative, executive, and judi-

cial—into the three branches created by Articles I, II, and

III. But they also created checks and balances to reinforce

that separation. For example, they gave Congress specific

enumerated powers to enact legislation, Art. I, §8, but

gave the President the power to veto that legislation,

subject to congressional override by a supermajority vote,

Art. I, §7, cls. 2, 3. They gave the President the power to

appoint principal officers of the United States, but gave

the Senate the power to give advice and consent to those

appointments. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They gave the House and

Senate the power to agree to adjourn for more than three

days, Art. I, §5, cl. 4, but gave the President the power, “in

Case of Disagreement between them,” to adjourn the

Congress “to such Time as he shall think proper.” Art. II,

§3, cl. 3. During the ratification debates, Madison argued

that this structure represented “the great security” for

liberty in the Constitution. The Federalist No. 51, p. 321

——————

3 The practices of the time can perhaps best be summarized by the

following commentary from a contemporaneous magazine: “[S]o many

legal infractions of sacred right—so many public invasions of private

property—so many wanton abuses of legislative powers!” Giles Hickory

(Noah Webster), Government, The American Magazine, Mar. 1788, p.

206.

8 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

(C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

To the Framers, the separation of powers and checks

and balances were more than just theories. They were

practical and real protections for individual liberty in the

new Constitution. See Mistretta v. United States, 488

U. S. 361, 426 (1989) (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (“[The Con-

stitution] is a prescribed structure, a framework, for the

conduct of government. In designing that structure, the

Framers themselves considered how much commingling [of

governmental powers] was, in the generality of things,

acceptable, and set forth their conclusions in the docu-

ment”). The Judiciary—no less than the other two

branches—has an obligation to guard against deviations

from those principles. The Seminole Rock line of prece-

dent is one such deviation.

B

Seminole Rock raises two related constitutional con-

cerns. It represents a transfer of judicial power to the

Executive Branch, and it amounts to an erosion of the

judicial obligation to serve as a “check” on the political

branches.

1

When a party properly brings a case or controversy to

an Article III court, that court is called upon to exercise

the “judicial Power of the United States.” Art. III, §1. For

the reasons I explain in this section, the judicial power, as

originally understood, requires a court to exercise its

independent judgment in interpreting and expounding

upon the laws.

Those who ratified the Constitution knew that legal

texts would often contain ambiguities. See generally

Molot, The Judicial Perspective in the Administrative

State: Reconciling Modern Doctrines of Deference with the

Judiciary’s Structural Role, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 20–21, and

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 9

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

n. 66 (2000); Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Con-

ventions, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519, 525–526 (2003). As

James Madison explained, “All new laws, though penned

with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest

and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or

less obscure and equivocal . . . .” The Federalist No. 37,

at 229.

The judicial power was understood to include the power

to resolve these ambiguities over time. See ibid. Alexan-

der Hamilton lauded this power, arguing that “[t]he inter-

pretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of

the courts.” Id., No. 78, at 467. It is undoubtedly true

that the other branches of Government have the authority

and obligation to interpret the law, but only the judicial

interpretation would be considered authoritative in a

judicial proceeding. Vile 360.

Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaged

in a public debate about this interpretive power, that

debate centered on the dangers inherent in the power, not

on its allocation under the Constitution. See, e.g., Letters

from The Federal Farmer XV (Jan. 18, 1788), in 2 The

Complete Anti-Federalist 315–316 (H. Storing ed. 1981)

(arguing that the interpretive power made the Judiciary

the most dangerous branch). Writing as “Brutus,” one

leading anti-Federalist argued that judges “w[ould] not

confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but

w[ould] determine, according to what appears to them, the

reason and spirit of the constitution.” Essays of Brutus

(Jan. 31, 1788), in 2 id., at 420. The Federalists rejected

these arguments, assuring the public that judges would be

guided “by strict rules and precedents which serve to

define and point out their duty in every particular case

that comes before them.” The Federalist No. 78, at 471 (A.

Hamilton). Those rules included principles of interpreta-

tion that had been set out by jurists for centuries. See,

e.g., 2 S. von Pufendorf, De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta

10 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

Legem Naturalem Libri Duo 83–86 (1682) (F. Moore

transl. 1927); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on

the Laws of England 59–61 (1765).

One of the key elements of the Federalists’ arguments in

support of the allocation of power to make binding inter-

pretations of the law was that Article III judges would

exercise independent judgment. Although “judicial inde-

pendence” is often discussed in terms of independence

from external threats, the Framers understood the concept

to also require independence from the “internal threat” of

“human will.” P. Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty 507,

508 (2008); see also The Federalist No. 78, at 465 (A.

Hamilton) (“The judiciary . . . may truly be said to have

neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment . . . ”).

Independent judgment required judges to decide cases in

accordance with the law of the land, not in accordance

with pressures placed upon them through either internal

or external sources. Internal sources might include per-

sonal biases, while external sources might include pres-

sure from the political branches, the public, or other

interested parties. See Hamburger, supra, at 508–521.

The Framers made several key decisions at the Conven-

tion with these pressures in mind. For example, they

rejected proposals to include a federal council of revision

after several participants at the Convention expressed

concern that judicial involvement in such a council would

foster internal biases. Rufus King of Maryland, for exam-

ple, asserted that “the Judges ought to be able to expound

the law as it should come before them, free from the bias

of having participated in its formation.” 1 Records of the

Federal Convention of 1787, at 98. Alexander Hamilton

repeated these concerns in The Federalist, arguing that

“the judges, who are to be interpreters of the law, might

receive an improper bias from having given a previous

opinion in their revisionary capacities” or “be induced to

embark too far in the political views of [the Executive]”

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 11

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

from too much association with him. The Federalist No.

73, at 446; see also Hamburger, supra, at 508–512.

The Framers also created structural protections in the

Constitution to free judges from external influences. They

provided, for example, that judges should “hold their

Offices during good Behaviour” and receive “a Compensa-

tion, which shall not be diminished during their Continu-

ance in Office.” Art. III, §1. Hamilton noted that such

unequivocal language had been shown necessary by the

experience of the States, where similar state constitutional

protections for judges had not been “sufficiently definite

to preclude legislative evasions” of the separation of the

judicial power. The Federalist No. 79, at 472. Because

“power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over

his will,” he argued that Article III’s structural protections

would help ensure that judges fulfilled their constitutional

role. Ibid. (emphasis deleted).

The Framers made the opposite choice for legislators

and the Executive. Instead of insulating them from exter-

nal pressures, the Constitution tied them to those pres-

sures. It provided for election of Members of the House of

Representatives every two years, Art. I, §2, cl. 1; and

selection of Members of the Senate every six years, Art. I,

§3, cl. 1. It also provided for the President to be subject to

election every four years. Art. II, §1, cl. 1. “The President

is [thus] directly dependent on the people, and since there

is only one President, he is responsible. The people know

whom to blame . . . .” See Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S.

654, 729 (1988) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). To preserve that

accountability, we have held that executive officers must

be subject to removal by the President to ensure account-

ability within the Executive Branch. See Free Enterprise

Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561

U. S. 477, 495 (2010); see also Morrison, supra, at 709

(opinion of SCALIA, J.) (“It is not for us to determine, and

we have never presumed to determine, how much of the

12 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

purely executive powers of government must be within the

full control of the President. The Constitution prescribes

that they all are”).

Given these structural distinctions between the branches,

it is no surprise that judicial interpretations are defini-

tive in cases and controversies before the courts. Courts

act as “an intermediate body between the people and the

legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the

latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” Fed-

eralist No. 78, at 467 (A. Hamilton). The Legislature and

Executive may be swayed by popular sentiment to aban-

don the strictures of the Constitution or other rules of law.

But the Judiciary, insulated from both internal and exter-

nal sources of bias, is duty bound to exercise independent

judgment in applying the law.

Interpreting agency regulations calls for that exercise of

independent judgment. Substantive regulations have the

force and effect of law. See, e.g., United States v. Mead

Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 231–232 (2001).4 Agencies and pri-

——————

4 These cases also raise constitutional questions about the distinction

in administrative law between “substantive” (or “legislative”) and

interpretative rules. The United States Court of Appeals for the D. C.

Circuit has defined a legislative rule as “[a]n agency action that pur-

ports to impose legally binding obligations or prohibitions on regulated

parties” and an interpretative rule as “[a]n agency action that merely

interprets a prior statute or regulation, and does not itself purport to

impose new obligations or prohibitions or requirements on regulated

parties.” National Mining Assn. v. McCarthy, 758 F. 3d 243, 251–252

(2014). And our precedents make clear that administrative agencies

must exercise only executive power in promulgating these rules.

Arlington v. FCC, 569 U. S. ___, ___, n. 4 (2013) (slip op., at 13, n. 4).

But while it is easy to see the promulgation of interpretative rules as

an “executive” function—executive officials necessarily interpret the

laws they enforce—it is difficult to see what authority the President

has “to impose legally binding obligations or prohibitions on regulated

parties.” That definition suggests something much closer to the legisla-

tive power, which our Constitution does not permit the Executive to

exercise in this manner. Because these troubling questions are not

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 13

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

vate parties alike can use these regulations in proceedings

against regulated parties. See, e.g., Christopher v.

SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2012)

(slip op., at 6–7) (private party relying on Department of

Labor regulations); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,

567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 6) (agency issuing

notices of liability under regulations). Just as it is critical

for judges to exercise independent judgment in applying

statutes, it is critical for judges to exercise independent

judgment in determining that a regulation properly covers

the conduct of regulated parties. Defining the legal mean-

ing of the regulation is one aspect of that determination.

Seminole Rock deference, however, precludes judges

from independently determining that meaning. Rather

than judges’ applying recognized tools of interpretation to

determine the best meaning of a regulation, this doctrine

demands that courts accord “controlling weight” to the

agency interpretation of a regulation, subject only to the

narrow exception for interpretations that are plainly

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. That defer-

ence amounts to a transfer of the judge’s exercise of inter-

pretive judgment to the agency. See 1 S. Johnson, Dic-

tionary of the English Language 499 (4th ed. 1773)

(defining “[d]efer” as “to leave to another’s judgment”).

But the agency, as part of the Executive Branch, lacks the

structural protections for independent judgment adopted

by the Framers, including the life tenure and salary pro-

tections of Article III. Because the agency is thus not

properly constituted to exercise the judicial power under

the Constitution, the transfer of interpretive judgment

raises serious separation-of-powers concerns.

——————

directly implicated here, I leave them for another case. See Department

of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, ante, at 19–22

(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment).

14 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

2

Seminole Rock is constitutionally questionable for an

additional reason: It undermines the judicial “check” on

the political branches. Unlike the Legislative and Execu-

tive Branches, each of which possesses several political

checks on the other, the Judiciary has one primary check

on the excesses of political branches. That check is the

enforcement of the rule of law through the exercise of

judicial power.

Judges have long recognized their responsibility to

apply the law, even if they did not conceive of it as a

“check” on political power. During the 17th century, for

example, King James I sought to pressure Chief Justice

Coke to affirm the lawfulness of his efforts to raise reve-

nue without the participation of Parliament. Hamburger,

Law and Judicial Duty, at 200–201. Coke sought time to

confer with his fellow jurists to “make an advised answer

according to law and reason.” Case of Proclamations, 12

Co. Rep. 74, 75, 77 Eng. Rep. 1352, 1353 (K. B. 1611). But

the King’s representative, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere,

responded that “he would advise the Judges to maintain

the power and prerogative of the King” and suggested

that, “in cases in which there is no authority and prece-

dent,” the judiciary should “leave it to the King to order in

it according to his wisdom.” Ibid. Coke famously re-

sponded, “[T]he King cannot change any part of the com-

mon law, nor create any offence by his proclamation,

which was not an offence before, without Parliament.”

Ibid. When James I later attempted to do just that, Coke

declared the proclamations “ ‘utterly against Law and

reason, and for that void.’ ” Hamburger, supra, at 202.

The Framers expected Article III judges to engage in

similar efforts, by applying the law as a “check” on the

excesses of both the Legislative and Executive Branches.

See, e.g., 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several Conventions

on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 553 (1863) (J.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 15

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

Marshall) (“If [the Government of the United States] make

a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it

would be considered by the judges as an infringement of

the Constitution which they are to guard. . . . They would

declare it void”); see also Vile 174. The Framers “contem-

plated [the Constitution], as a rule for the government of

courts, as well as of the legislature.” Marbury v. Madison,

1 Cranch 137, 179–180 (1803). Thus, if a case involved a

conflict between a law and the Constitution, judges would

have a duty “to adhere to the latter and disregard the

former.” The Federalist No. 78, at 468 (A. Hamilton); see

also Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 178. Similarly, if a case in-

volved an executive effort to extend a law beyond its

meaning, judges would have a duty to adhere to the law

that had been properly promulgated under the Constitu-

tion. Cf. id., at 157–158 (considering the scope of the

President’s constitutional power of appointment). As this

Court said long ago, “[T]he particular phraseology of the

constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens

the principle, supposed to be essential to all written con-

stitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void;

and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound

by that instrument.” Id., at 180.

Article III judges cannot opt out of exercising their

check. As we have long recognized, “[t]he Judiciary has a

responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those

it ‘would gladly avoid.’ ” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S.

___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 5) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia,

6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821)). This responsibility applies not

only to constitutional challenges to particular statutes,

see, e.g., Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013)

(slip op., at 2), including those based on the separation of

powers, Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 501–502, but

also to more routine questions about the best interpreta-

tion of statutes, see, e.g., Whitfield v. United States, 574

U. S. ___, ___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 2–3), or the compati-

16 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

bility of agency actions with enabling statutes, Utility Air

Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip

op., at 10). In each case, the Judiciary is called upon to

exercise its independent judgment and apply the law.

But we have not consistently exercised the judicial

check with respect to administrative agencies. Even

though regulated parties have repeatedly challenged

agency interpretations as inconsistent with existing regu-

lations, we have just as repeatedly declined to exercise

independent judgment as to those claims. Instead, we

have deferred to the executive agency that both promul-

gated the regulations and enforced them. Although an

agency’s interpretation of a regulation might be the best

interpretation, it also might not. When courts refuse even

to decide what the best interpretation is under the law,

they abandon the judicial check. That abandonment

permits precisely the accumulation of governmental pow-

ers that the Framers warned against. See The Federalist

No. 47, at 302 (J. Madison).

C

This accumulation of governmental powers allows agen-

cies to change the meaning of regulations at their discre-

tion and without any advance notice to the parties. It is

precisely this problem that the United States Court of

Appeals for the D. C. Circuit attempted to address by

requiring agencies to undertake notice and comment

procedures before substantially revising definitive inter-

pretations of regulations. Paralyzed Veterans, supra.

Though legally erroneous, the Court of Appeals’ reasoning

was practically sound. When courts give “controlling

weight” to an administrative interpretation of a regula-

tion—instead of to the best interpretation of it—they

effectively give the interpretation—and not the regula-

tion—the force and effect of law. To regulated parties, the

new interpretation might as well be a new regulation.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 17

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

These cases provide a classic example of the problem.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 establishes federal

minimum wage and overtime requirements, but exempts

from these requirements “any employee engaged in a bona

fide executive, administrative, or professional capac-

ity . . . , or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such

terms are defined and delimited from time to time by

regulations of the Secretary).” 29 U. S. C. §213(a)(1). The

Department of Labor has accordingly promulgated regula-

tions providing that “an employee whose primary duty is

selling financial products does not qualify for the adminis-

trative exemption.” 29 CFR §541.203(b) (2015).

Unsure whether certain mortgage-loan officers qualified

as employees whose primary duty is selling financial

products, the Mortgage Bankers Association asked the

Department of Labor for advice. In 2006, the Department

concluded that the officers are not employees whose pri-

mary duty is selling financial products. But in 2010, the

Department reversed course, concluding exactly the oppo-

site. If courts accord “controlling weight” to both the 2006

and 2010 interpretations, the regulated entities are sub-

ject to two opposite legal rules imposed under the same

regulation.

This practice turns on its head the principle that the

United States is “a government of laws, and not of men.”

Marbury, supra, at 163. Regulations provide notice to

regulated parties in only a limited sense because their

meaning will ultimately be determined by agencies rather

than by the “strict rules and precedents” to which Alexan-

der Hamilton once referred.5

——————

5 The notice problem is exacerbated by agency departures from the

procedures established for rulemaking in the APA. Although almost all

rulemaking is today accomplished through informal notice and com-

ment, the APA actually contemplated a much more formal process for

most rulemaking. To that end, it provided for elaborate trial-like

hearings in which proponents of particular rules would introduce

18 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

III

Although this Court offered no theoretical justifica-

tion for Seminole Rock deference when announcing it, sev-

eral justifications have been proposed since. None is

persuasive.

A

Probably the most oft-recited justification for Seminole

Rock deference is that of agency expertise in administer-

ing technical statutory schemes. Under this justification,

deference to administrative agencies is necessary when a

“regulation concerns ‘a complex and highly technical regu-

latory program’ in which the identification and classifica-

tion of relevant ‘criteria necessarily require significant

expertise and entail the exercise of judgment grounded in

policy concerns.’ ” Thomas Jefferson Univ., 512 U. S., at

512.

This defense of Seminole Rock deference misidentifies

the relevant inquiry. The proper question faced by courts

in interpreting a regulation is not what the best policy

choice might be, but what the regulation means. Because

this Court has concluded that “substantive agency regula-

tions have the ‘force and effect of law,’ ” Chrysler Corp. v.

——————

evidence and bear the burden of proof in support of those proposed

rules. See 5 U. S. C. §556.

Today, however, formal rulemaking is the Yeti of administrative law.

There are isolated sightings of it in the ratemaking context, but else-

where it proves elusive. It is somewhat ironic for the Court so ada-

mantly to insist that agencies be subject to no greater procedures than

those required by the APA when we have not been adamant in requir-

ing agencies to comply with even those baseline procedures. See United

States v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 410 U. S. 224, 237–238 (1973)

(concluding that the APA’s formal procedures, which were to apply

“[w]hen rules are required by statute to be made on the record after

opportunity for an agency hearing,” §553(c), were not triggered by a

statute that permitted an agency to engage in rulemaking only “ ‘after

[a] hearing’ ”).

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 19

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 295 (1979), such regulations should

be interpreted like any other law. Thus, we should “as-

sum[e] that the ordinary meaning of the regulation’s

language expresses” its purpose and enforce it “according

to its terms.” See Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.

Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Judges are at least as well suited as administra-

tive agencies to engage in this task. Cf. Marbury, 1

Cranch, at 177 (“It is emphatically the province and duty

of the judicial department to say what the law is”). In-

deed, judges are frequently called upon to interpret the

meaning of legal texts and are able to do so even when

those texts involve technical language. See, e.g., Barber v.

Gonzales, 347 U. S. 637, 640–643 (1954) (interpreting

deportation statute according to technical meaning).

Fundamentally, the argument about agency expertise is

less about the expertise of agencies in interpreting lan-

guage than it is about the wisdom of according agencies

broad flexibility to administer statutory schemes.6 “But

——————

6 Many decisions of this Court invoke agency expertise as a justifica-

tion for deference. This argument has its root in the support for admin-

istrative agencies that developed during the Progressive Era in this

country. The Era was marked by a move from the individualism that

had long characterized American society to the concept of a society

organized for collective action. See A. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the

Progressive Era 1910–1917, p. 1 (1954). That move also reflected a

deep disdain for the theory of popular sovereignty. As Woodrow Wilson

wrote before he attained the presidency, “Our peculiar American

difficulty in organizing administration is not the danger of losing

liberty, but the danger of not being able or willing to separate its

essentials from its accidents. Our success is made doubtful by that

besetting error of ours, the error of trying to do too much by vote.”

Wilson, The Study of Administration, 2 Pol. Sci. Q. 197, 214 (1887). In

President Wilson’s view, public criticism would be beneficial in the

formation of overall policy, but “a clumsy nuisance” in the daily life of

Government—“a rustic handling delicate machinery.” Id., at 215.

Reflecting this belief that bureaucrats might more effectively govern

the country than the American people, the progressives ushered in

20 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

policy arguments supporting even useful ‘political inven-

tions’ are subject to the demands of the Constitution which

defines powers and . . . sets out . . . how those powers are

to be exercised.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 945

(1983). Even in the face of a perceived necessity, the

Constitution protects us from ourselves. New York v.

United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187–188 (1992).

B

Another oft-recited justification for Seminole Rock def-

erence is that agencies are better situated to define the

original intent behind their regulations. See Martin v.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S.

144, 152–153 (1991). Under this justification, “[b]ecause

the Secretary [of Labor] promulgates th[e] standards, the

Secretary is in a better position . . . to reconstruct the

purpose of the regulations in question.” Id., at 152.

This justification rings hollow. This Court has afforded

Seminole Rock deference to agency interpretations even

when the agency was not the original drafter. See Pauley,

501 U. S., at 696–698 (applying Seminole Rock deference

to one agency’s interpretation of another agency’s regula-

tions because Congress had delegated authority to both to

administer the program). It has likewise granted Semi-

nole Rock deference to agency interpretations that are

inconsistent with interpretations adopted closer in time to

the promulgation of the regulations. See, e.g., Long Island

Care at Home, 551 U. S., at 170–171.

Even if the scope of Seminole Rock deference more

closely matched the original-drafter justification, it would

still fail. It is the text of the regulations that have the

force and effect of law, not the agency’s intent. “Citizens

——————

significant expansions of the administrative state, ultimately culminat-

ing in the New Deal. See generally M. Keller, Regulating a New

Economy: Public Policy and Economic Change in America, 1900–1933

(1990).

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 21

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

arrange their affairs not on the basis of their legislators’

unexpressed intent, but on the basis of the law as it is

written and promulgated.” Zuni Public School Dist. No.

89 v. Department of Education, 550 U. S. 81, 119 (2007)

(SCALIA, J., dissenting). Cf. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S.

555, 586–587 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)

(noting that only “federal standards . . . that are set forth

in, or necessarily follow from, the statutory text that was

produced through the constitutionally required bicameral

and presentment procedures”—not Congress’ “purposes

and objectives”—can become the “law of the land”). “To be

governed by legislated text rather than legislators’ inten-

tions is what it means to be ‘a Government of laws, not of

men.’ ” Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89, supra, at 119

(SCALIA, J., dissenting). Only the text of a regulation goes

through the procedures established by Congress for agency

rulemaking. And it is that text on which the public is

entitled to rely. For the same reasons that we should not

accord controlling weight to postenactment expressions of

intent by individual Members of Congress, see Sullivan v.

Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 631–632 (1990) (SCALIA, J.,

concurring in part), we should not accord controlling

weight to expressions of intent by administrators of

agencies.

C

A third asserted justification for Seminole Rock defer-

ence is that Congress has delegated to agencies the au-

thority to interpret their own regulations. See, e.g., Mar-

tin, 499 U. S., at 151. The theory is that, “[b]ecause

applying an agency’s regulation to complex or changing

circumstances calls upon the agency’s unique expertise

and policymaking prerogatives, . . . the power authorita-

tively to interpret its own regulations is a component of

the agency’s delegated lawmaking powers.” Ibid.

This justification fails because Congress lacks authority

22 PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

to delegate the power. As we have explained in an analo-

gous context, “[t]he structure of the Constitution does not

permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Con-

gress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it

does not possess.” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 726

(1986). Similarly, the Constitution does not empower

Congress to issue a judicially binding interpretation of the

Constitution or its laws. Lacking the power itself, it can-

not delegate that power to an agency.

To hold otherwise would be to vitiate the separation of

powers and ignore the “sense of a sharp necessity to sepa-

rate the legislative from the judicial power . . . [that]

triumphed among the Framers of the new Federal Consti-

tution.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211,

221 (1995). As this Court has explained, the “essential

balance” of the Constitution is that the Legislature is

“possessed of power to ‘prescrib[e] the rules by which the

duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated,’ but

the power of ‘[t]he interpretation of the laws’ [is] ‘the

proper and peculiar province of the courts.’ ” Id., at 222

(citation omitted; third brackets added). Although the

Constitution imposes a duty on all three branches to

interpret the laws within their own spheres, the power to

create legally binding interpretations rests with the Judi-

ciary. See Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177, 179–180.

D

A final proposed justification for Seminole Rock defer-

ence is that too much oversight of administrative matters

would imperil the “independence and esteem” of judges.

See, e.g., Charles Evans Hughes, Speech before the Elmira

Chamber of Commerce, May 3, 1907, in Addresses of

Charles Evans Hughes, 1906–1916, p. 185 (2d ed. 1916).

The argument goes that questions of administration are

those which “lie close to the public impatience,” id., at 186,

and thus the courts’ resolution of such questions could

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 23

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment

“expose them to the fire of public criticism,” id., at 187.

But this argument, which boils down to a policy judg-

ment of questionable validity, cannot vitiate the constitu-

tional allocation of powers. The Judicial Branch is sepa-

rate from the political branches for a reason: It has the

obligation to apply the law to cases and controversies that

come before it, and concerns about the popular esteem of

individual judges—or even the Judiciary as a whole—have

no place in that analysis. Our system of Government

could not long survive absent adherence to the written

Constitution that formed it.

* * *

Although on the surface these cases require only a

straightforward application of the APA, closer scrutiny

reveals serious constitutional questions lurking beneath. I

have “acknowledge[d] the importance of stare decisis to the

stability of our Nation’s legal system.” “But stare decisis is

only an ‘adjunct’ of our duty as judges to decide by our best

lights what the Constitution means.” McDonald v. Chicago,

561 U. S. 742, 812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in

part and concurring in judgment) (citation omitted). By

my best lights, the entire line of precedent beginning with

Seminole Rock raises serious constitutional questions and

should be reconsidered in an appropriate case.