October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1041
Can an agency change its interpretation of a rule without public comment?
Mortgage bankers argue the agency must follow public comment rules to change its view on loan officer pay.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Edwin Kneedler argued the law exempts interpretive rule changes from public comment.
Ms. Ho argued the agency must follow public comment rules when changing its interpretation.
Justice Scalia suggested the Court should not defer to agency interpretations of its own rules.
Justice Kennedy asked if a background principle favors interpretive rules over regulations.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-34
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if the Department of Labor must hold public hearings before changing how it reads its own pay rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 1, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-20
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the agency to change its interpretation without public comment.
the opposing sides want the agency to hold public hearings before changing its interpretation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the law exempts interpretive rule changes from public comment requirements.
the opposing sides argue the agency must follow public comment rules when changing its interpretation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if agency leadership changed between the two letters.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the agency changed its mind about employee classification.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-34
Why it matters
This case determines if agencies can change their views on worker pay without public input. It affects how many workers receive overtime pay. It shapes the balance between agency flexibility and public participation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-34
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 40-14 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 40-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-48
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.