Guidance documents and “shadow rulemaking”
1. Introduction
Guidance documents are administrative tools issued by government agencies to clarify laws, regulations, or agency policies. They provide interpretation, advice, or procedural instructions but generally do not have the force of law.
Shadow rulemaking refers to the practice where agencies use guidance documents or informal communications to create policies or rules that effectively bind the public without undergoing formal rulemaking procedures mandated by laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This raises critical questions about transparency, accountability, and legality, because formal rulemaking requires notice, public comment, and other procedural safeguards which guidance documents typically lack.
2. Legal Principles
Guidance documents are generally non-binding and do not create legally enforceable rights or obligations.
Agencies must not use guidance to evade formal rulemaking.
Courts will examine whether a document or policy is really a binding rule disguised as guidance.
If a “guidance” acts like a rule, courts may treat it as an illegal rule made without following proper procedures.
Procedural fairness and public participation are central to administrative legitimacy.
3. Important Case Laws on Guidance Documents and Shadow Rulemaking
Case 1: Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts:
Mortgage bankers challenged guidance issued by the Department of Labor that imposed new compliance obligations without formal rulemaking.
Judgment:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that guidance documents that do not impose binding obligations or rights are exempt from the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.
Significance:
Clarified that agencies can issue interpretive rules or guidance without formal procedures as long as they do not create binding rules.
Case 2: National Mining Ass’n v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
Facts:
The mining association challenged a Department of Labor guidance that effectively imposed new safety standards.
Judgment:
The D.C. Circuit held that when a guidance document creates binding requirements, it must be issued following formal rulemaking procedures.
Significance:
The case distinguished between true guidance and “shadow rules” that circumvent procedural safeguards.
Case 3: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
Facts:
The Chamber challenged SEC guidance that effectively changed disclosure requirements without public comment.
Judgment:
Court ruled that SEC’s guidance was effectively a rule and vacated it because it did not go through the formal rulemaking process.
Significance:
Affirmed that substance over form matters—if guidance acts like a rule, it must follow rulemaking procedures.
Case 4: Am. Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. OSHA, 965 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Facts:
OSHA issued guidance on COVID-19 workplace safety, which was challenged for bypassing rulemaking.
Judgment:
Court noted that OSHA’s guidance did not impose mandatory requirements and was thus not subject to formal rulemaking, but warned against the use of guidance to enforce binding obligations.
Significance:
Reiterated the distinction and cautioned agencies against “shadow rulemaking”.
Case 5: Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Becerra, 142 S.Ct. 1896 (2022)
Facts:
Hospitals challenged CMS guidance that altered Medicare reimbursement rules without notice-and-comment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that when guidance effectively changes legal rights or obligations, it constitutes a legislative rule requiring formal rulemaking.
Significance:
Strengthened limits on shadow rulemaking, emphasizing due process and public participation.
4. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Non-binding Nature of Guidance | Guidance should clarify but not impose binding legal obligations. |
| No Evasion of Rulemaking | Agencies cannot use guidance to bypass formal rulemaking. |
| Substance over Form | Courts look at the practical effect, not just the label of the document. |
| Requirement for Public Participation | Binding rules require notice, comment, and transparency. |
| Limits on Administrative Power | Protects against arbitrary policy imposition without accountability. |
5. Conclusion
Guidance documents serve an important role in explaining and interpreting regulations but must not be used as a means of “shadow rulemaking” to impose legally binding rules without proper procedures. Courts closely scrutinize such attempts and enforce strict procedural requirements to ensure fairness, transparency, and democratic accountability in administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments