Defying Auer Deference

Minnesota Law Review De Novo, 2015

12 Pages Posted: 5 Mar 2017

See all articles by Nicholas Bednar

Nicholas Bednar

Vanderbilt University, Department of Political Science

Date Written: June 24, 2015


On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association. The Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P. The rule created in Paralyzed Veterans required agencies to “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 Paralyzed Veterans rule addressed policy concerns that agencies use interpretive rules to evade APA notice-and-comment procedures. According to Professor Sasha Volokh, the overturning of Paralyzed Veterans is uncontroversial and founded in sound understandings of statutory interpretation. The opinions of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, however, suggest that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court may be seeking to overturn another longstanding rule: Auer deference (a.k.a. Seminole Rock deference).

Keywords: Auer, Deference, Chevron, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers, Gloucester, Thomas, Scalia

Suggested Citation

Bednar, Nicholas, Defying Auer Deference (June 24, 2015). Minnesota Law Review De Novo, 2015, Available at SSRN:

Nicholas Bednar (Contact Author)

Vanderbilt University, Department of Political Science ( email )

VU Station B #351817
Nashville, TN 37235-1817
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics