Federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public

[Hand]

Regulators won a big victory at the Supreme Court on Monday as the justices endorsed expansive powers for changing the interpretation of federal rules.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public and collecting comment when changing the interpretations of rules, effectively removing steps from the process that can take months and sometimes years to complete.

The case, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, stemmed from a longstanding Labor Department rule that determines which employees are eligible to earn overtime and minimum wage.

The Mortgage Bankers Association sued after the Labor Department changed its interpretation of the the rule to include mortgage loan officers. The bankers said Labor violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to provide time for provide public notice and time for comment.

But the high court unanimously rejected that argument in an opinion wrote by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule,” Sotomayor wrote.

The decision contradicts the D.C. Circuit Court’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which 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 one previously adopted.

Justice Samuel Alito said the Paralyzed Doctrine likely stemmed from fear that federal agencies were becoming too powerful and concerns that Congress was affording them too much lawmaking authority

“I do not dismiss these concerns, but the Paralyzed Doctrine is not a viable cure for these problems,” he said.

John Meyers, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg, said the ruling gives the Labor Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board a wide berth when it comes to promulgating rules outside of the normal agency rulemaking process, which requires notice, time for rebuttal and comment considerations from constituent groups.

“We can expect the current administration to use this ruling to back up its authority to pass new or change existing precedents,” he said.

Source

[MR2]

Standards are good, that's why we've decide to double them...

[Box]

How is THAT for government transparency. Justice Alito even acknowledged that there are concerns that federal organizations are becoming too powerful and gaining an increasingly wide operational berth by Congress. Even after the evident abuses by the NSA brought to light by Edward Snowden, even after the abuses by the IRS targeting opponents of the seated administration, even after abuses by the Justice Department as it was caught investigating reporters that report unfavorably on the administration, even after...
...etc etc etc
So at the end of the day, even the SCOTUS seems to enjoy this new definition of transparency. Federal organizations can change the rules as they see fit with no immediate oversight or requirement to post said changes until someone notices and calls them on it.



So...
...how long before the ATF starts reinterpreting gun laws without having to follow procedures?
...how long before the IRS starts reinterpreting tax laws without having to follow procedures?
...how long before the DHS starts reinterpreting travel laws without having to follow procedures?
...how long before the VA starts reinterpreting healthcare laws without having to follow procedures?
...how long before the United States National Police (give it time-its coming) begins to reinterpret the first amendment?
...how long before the CIA and NSA redefine privacy laws?

Awesome, simply awesome.
Welcome to the Brave New World my friends; enjoy your bread, the circus will resume after a brief intermission for the performers to change costumes.

edited to add...

ref: Syllabus
PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 13–1041. Argued December 1, 2014—Decided March 9, 2015*

...still not convinced that NON-ELECTED government agencies should be allowed to reinterpret rules behind closed doors

[Streck-Fu]

Considering the recent ATF activities, I am sure nothing untoward will come of this ....

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the Supreme Court's ruling is available here.

IMO, the opinions of the justices anticipate and address some of the concerns expressed in this thread.

[craigepo]

Scalia is right on, as usual.

[blacksmoke]

How long before this, website which is critical of gov't abuses, and populated by combat vets, is interpreted as domestic terrorism?