Informal policy statements vs binding rules
Definitions
Binding Rules (Legislative Rules): These are agency rules that have the force and effect of law. They establish legal rights and obligations, often requiring compliance by regulated parties. Binding rules typically must go through formal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice-and-comment requirements (unless exempt).
Informal Policy Statements: These are agency statements that provide guidance on how an agency intends to exercise its discretionary authority but do not create binding rights or obligations. They are meant to inform the public and agency staff about enforcement priorities or interpretive approaches but lack the force of law. Agencies typically do not have to follow formal rulemaking procedures for these.
Why the Distinction Matters
Legal Effect: Binding rules affect the rights and duties of individuals or entities. Policy statements do not.
Procedural Requirements: Binding rules usually require notice-and-comment under the APA; policy statements generally do not.
Judicial Review: Courts will review binding rules for compliance with APA and statutory mandates. Policy statements are often considered non-reviewable or given less deference because they lack legal force.
Key Case Law
1. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts: The Department of Labor (DOL) issued a rule changing its method for calculating overtime pay, but initially applied it without notice-and-comment.
Issue: Whether the DOL was required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before rescinding a binding rule.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required for substantive changes to binding rules, not for rescinding informal policy statements.
Explanation: The case clarifies that binding rules require formal procedures, whereas policy statements do not.
Principle: Agencies must follow APA notice-and-comment for binding rule changes but have flexibility with policy statements.
2. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012)
Facts: The Department of Labor issued an interpretive rule regarding overtime exemptions.
Issue: Whether the interpretive rule was binding and subject to judicial deference.
Ruling: The Court held that interpretive rules do not have the force of law and are entitled only to Skidmore deference (persuasive but not binding).
Explanation: This case highlights the distinction between binding rules and non-binding interpretive guidance.
Principle: Interpretive rules are informal policy statements that do not have binding legal effect.
3. General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530 (1990)
Facts: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an informal policy statement about how it would enforce emissions standards.
Issue: Whether the policy statement was binding or required formal rulemaking.
Ruling: The Court held that informal policy statements do not bind the agency or the public and do not require formal rulemaking.
Explanation: Agencies can issue policy statements to communicate intent without creating enforceable rules.
Principle: Informal policy statements are not legally binding and don't require APA procedures.
4. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)
Facts: The Fish and Wildlife Service issued biological opinions related to endangered species that affected water projects.
Issue: Whether the biological opinion was a final agency action binding on the parties.
Ruling: The Court found the biological opinion was a binding action because it effectively altered legal rights and triggered judicial review.
Explanation: The line between policy statements and binding rules can depend on whether the agency action has direct legal consequences.
Principle: An agency action that creates rights or obligations is a binding rule, even if informally issued.
5. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Facts: Customs Service issued a ruling letter denying tariff classification.
Issue: Whether the ruling letter was binding and entitled to Chevron deference.
Ruling: The Court held that not all agency interpretations are binding rules; some are informal and deserve only Skidmore deference.
Explanation: Binding nature depends on statutory authority and procedural context.
Principle: Agency interpretations can be informal policy statements if not issued via formal rulemaking.
6. Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
Facts: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board issued a guideline concerning building accessibility.
Issue: Whether the guideline was a binding rule.
Ruling: The court held that guidelines issued without formal rulemaking were non-binding policy statements.
Explanation: Guidelines and policy statements provide direction but lack binding effect.
Principle: Non-legislative guidelines are generally not binding and are exempt from APA formalities.
Summary Table of Key Principles
| Case | Key Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n (2015) | Notice-and-comment required for binding rule changes, not for policy statements | Formal rulemaking applies only to binding rules |
| Christopher v. SmithKline (2012) | Interpretive rules are informal and non-binding | Such rules receive Skidmore deference |
| General Motors v. U.S. (1990) | Informal policy statements do not bind agency or public | No APA procedures required |
| Bennett v. Spear (1997) | Actions creating legal rights/obligations are binding rules | Final agency action triggers judicial review |
| U.S. v. Mead (2001) | Binding nature depends on statutory authority and procedures | Informal interpretations often get less deference |
| Paralyzed Veterans v. D.C. Arena (1997) | Guidelines without formal rulemaking are non-binding policy | Guidelines offer direction, not enforceable mandates |
Conclusion
The distinction between informal policy statements and binding rules is central in administrative law because it determines:
Whether the agency must follow formal rulemaking procedures (notice and comment),
The degree of judicial deference an agency action receives,
The legal rights and obligations imposed on regulated parties.
Courts generally uphold that binding rules create enforceable legal obligations and require procedural safeguards, while policy statements serve as guidance without binding effect.
RELATED Blog
0 comments