Interpretative rules
Interpretative Rules
What are Interpretative Rules?
Interpretative rules are administrative guidelines issued by agencies that clarify or explain existing statutes or regulations but do not create new legal obligations or change existing rights and duties. These rules guide how the agency interprets the law but are not legally binding like substantive rules or legislative rules.
Key Characteristics
They do not have the force of law.
They provide clarity and help ensure consistent application of the law.
Agencies are not required to follow formal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to issue interpretative rules.
Courts generally give some deference to interpretative rules but may scrutinize their validity.
Difference from Other Rules
| Type of Rule | Description | Legal Effect | Rulemaking Required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative/Substantive Rules | Create new rights or duties | Binding | Yes (notice and comment) |
| Interpretative Rules | Clarify existing laws or rules | Not binding | No |
| Procedural Rules | Regulate internal agency procedures | Not binding externally | Sometimes |
Case Laws Illustrating Interpretative Rules
1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944), United States
Facts: The issue was whether an interpretative opinion letter by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor deserved deference.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that interpretative rules and opinions do not have the force of law but merit respect according to their persuasiveness.
Principle (Skidmore Deference): The weight given depends on factors like the agency's thoroughness, consistency, and validity of reasoning.
Impact: Established the standard for judicial deference to interpretative rules before Chevron deference became prevalent.
2. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: Concerned agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes under environmental law.
Holding: Courts must defer to agency interpretations if Congress’s intent is ambiguous and the interpretation is reasonable.
Relation to Interpretative Rules: Chevron established that courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations, including interpretative rules, but the level of deference depends on whether the rule has the force of law.
Impact: Though focused more on legislative rules, Chevron influences how interpretative rules are reviewed, but such rules get less deference than legislative rules.
3. Auer v. Robbins (1997)
Facts: The Department of Labor issued an interpretative rule clarifying the Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for overtime.
Holding: The Supreme Court deferred to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if the regulation is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Relation: This "Auer deference" applies to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, including interpretative rules.
Impact: Strengthened deference to agencies on their interpretative rules, though recent cases have scrutinized this doctrine.
4. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)
Facts: The Department of Labor changed its interpretation on a procedural matter via an interpretative rule without following notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that agencies are not required to use notice-and-comment procedures when issuing interpretative rules.
Impact: Confirmed that interpretative rules can be issued without formal rulemaking, making it easier for agencies to clarify laws.
5. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (2012)
Facts: The Department of Labor issued an interpretative rule regarding exemptions from overtime pay.
Holding: The Supreme Court gave Skidmore deference rather than Chevron deference because the agency’s interpretation was an interpretative rule, not a legislative rule.
Impact: Reaffirmed that interpretative rules receive less judicial deference than legislative rules, and courts can reject agency interpretations if unpersuasive.
6. Mead Corp. v. Department of Treasury (2001)
Facts: Involved whether tariff classification letters by Customs deserved Chevron deference.
Holding: The Court ruled that informal agency interpretations (like interpretative rules) do not automatically qualify for Chevron deference but can be given respect under Skidmore.
Impact: Clarified that interpretative rules usually receive less deference than formal rules.
Summary Table of Interpretative Rules Case Law
| Case | Year | Holding | Key Principle Regarding Interpretative Rules |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skidmore v. Swift & Co. | 1944 | Courts give weight based on persuasiveness | Established "Skidmore deference" for interpretative rules |
| Chevron v. NRDC | 1984 | Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations | Basis for deferential review but more for legislative rules |
| Auer v. Robbins | 1997 | Agency’s interpretation of its own rules gets deference | "Auer deference" applies to interpretative rules |
| Perez v. MBA | 2015 | Agencies don’t need notice and comment for interpretative rules | Confirmed procedural flexibility for interpretative rules |
| Christopher v. SmithKline | 2012 | Skidmore deference applies to interpretative rules | Confirmed lower deference for interpretative rules |
| Mead Corp. v. Dept of Treasury | 2001 | Informal agency interpretations get Skidmore deference | Clarified distinction between rule types for deference |
Conclusion
Interpretative rules clarify but do not create binding law.
Courts give interpretative rules some deference, based on persuasiveness (Skidmore), reasonableness (Chevron in some cases), or agency’s own interpretation (Auer).
Agencies do not need to follow strict notice-and-comment procedures for interpretative rules.
Courts carefully distinguish interpretative rules from legislative rules in judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments