Tag Archives: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers

Deference’s Discontents

by Jeff Pojanowski — Tuesday, June 30, 2015

I’d like to chip in with some quick thoughts on recent, skeptical rumblings in the Court about deference to administrative agencies. What interests me most here is not the arguments separate Justices are making against deference—they are not new to administrative law thinking, though their return to judicial discussion is more novel. Rather, I’m wondering […]

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association: The Future of Auer Deference

by Christopher J. Walker — Monday, Mar. 23, 2015@chris_j_walker

Last week my co-blogger Jeff Pojanowski and I participated in a Federalist Society teleforum (moderated by Adam White) on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association. In Mortgage Bankers, the Court held in a unanimous decision that a federal agency is not required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking to revise a prior interpretation […]

More on Agency Interpretations of Regulations: Taking Deference Seriously

by Jeff Pojanowski — Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2014

Last week I posted about the Supreme Court’s upcoming cases addressing whether agencies must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to change previous interpretations of their own regulations. The D.C. Circuit, in its Paralyzed Veterans line of cases, holds that an agency must, reasoning that the agency’s change modifies legal obligations. The bulk of circuit courts, and […]

Showdown in the Supreme Court over Administrative Interpretation of Regulations

by Jeff Pojanowski — Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014

On the first of October, a young professor’s fancy turns to the Supreme Court, which will be opening its new term the following week. In that spirit, I want to comment briefly on one of the most important grants of the October 2014 Term in regulatory law: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, which, paired with […]