| Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 1, 2014 Decided March 9, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Mortgage Bankers Association, et al. Jerome Nickols, et al. v. Mortgage Bankers Association |
| Docket nos. | 13-1041 13-1052 |
| Citations | 575 U.S. 92 (more) 135 S. Ct. 1199; 191 L. Ed. 2d 186 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Mortg. Bankers Ass'n v. Harris, 720 F.3d 966, 405 U.S. App. D.C. 429 (D.C. Cir. 2013) |
| Holding | |
| Notice-and-comment procedures are not required when agencies enact interpretive rules, and they should not be required to make subsequent interpretations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan; Alito (except Part III–B) |
| Concurrence | Alito (in part) |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Laws applied | |
| Administrative Procedure Act | |
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the D.C. Circuit's Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to a clear reading of the Administrative Procedure Act and "improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the Act's maximum procedural requirements."[1]
Opinion of the Court
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion of the Court.[2]
Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas authored concurring opinions.
See also
References
External links
- Text of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- SCOTUSblog coverage
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:54