Interpretive vs legislative rules
1. Difference Between Interpretive and Legislative Rules
Legislative Rules
Issued by an administrative agency under delegated authority from legislature.
They carry the force of law.
Agencies must follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking process (as per Administrative Procedure Acts in many jurisdictions).
Example: A tax department creating a new tax regulation after legislative authorization.
Interpretive Rules
These are agency’s interpretations of statutes or existing legislative rules.
They do not have the force of law but are persuasive.
No notice-and-comment procedure required.
Example: An agency circular explaining how to apply an existing tax provision.
2. Important Case Laws
(i) United States v. Mead Corp. (2001)
Facts: The U.S. Customs Service issued a tariff classification ruling letter to Mead about imported day planners. Mead challenged it, saying it shouldn’t have binding effect.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that only legislative rules issued under congressional delegation have binding legal effect. Interpretive rulings like this one are not entitled to Chevron deference but may get Skidmore deference (respect depending on persuasiveness).
Significance: Established that not all agency interpretations are legislative. Some are only interpretive and get less judicial deference.
(ii) Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (1979)
Facts: Chrysler challenged the Department of Labor’s decision to disclose contractor employment data, claiming it was unauthorized.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the regulation authorizing disclosure was interpretive only, not legislative, because it lacked statutory authority.
Significance: Confirmed that interpretive rules don’t create binding obligations unless backed by clear legislative delegation.
(iii) Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)
Facts: The Department of Labor issued an interpretive rule about overtime exemptions, later changing it without notice-and-comment. The MBA argued that change required rulemaking procedures.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that agencies can change interpretive rules without notice-and-comment since they don’t have the force of law.
Significance: Reinforced that interpretive rules are flexible but less powerful than legislative rules.
(iv) Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital (1995)
Facts: A hospital challenged Medicare reimbursement rules issued by the Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming they were improperly adopted without formal rulemaking.
Ruling: The Court held these were interpretive rules—they merely explained existing regulations, not legislative rules.
Significance: Clear line drawn that interpretive rules clarify existing law and need no notice-and-comment procedure.
(v) Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA (2000)
Facts: EPA issued a guidance document on monitoring requirements. Power companies challenged it as an unlawfully binding legislative rule.
Ruling: The D.C. Circuit ruled the guidance was effectively a legislative rule disguised as an interpretive rule since it imposed binding obligations.
Significance: Courts won’t let agencies avoid notice-and-comment by calling a legislative rule “interpretive.”
(vi) American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration (1993)
Facts: Mining industry challenged an MSHA interpretation requiring medical records retention.
Ruling: The D.C. Circuit held the rule was interpretive, not legislative, because it simply clarified existing duties rather than imposing new ones.
Significance: Gave a test for identifying legislative rules—does the rule create new duties/rights or simply explain existing ones?
(vii) Morton v. Ruiz (1974)
Facts: The Bureau of Indian Affairs denied benefits to an Indian family under unpublished eligibility criteria.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that when an agency creates binding rules, it must follow proper procedures. Informal interpretive guidelines couldn’t restrict benefits.
Significance: Reinforced that legislative rules require proper promulgation, while interpretive statements alone can’t deny rights.
3. Key Takeaways from Cases
Legislative rules = legally binding, require notice-and-comment (Chrysler, Mead, Appalachian Power).
Interpretive rules = explain statutes/regulations, not binding, no notice-and-comment needed (Perez, Shalala, AMC v. MSHA).
Agencies cannot disguise legislative rules as interpretive to avoid procedure (Appalachian Power, Morton v. Ruiz).
Courts apply different levels of deference: Chevron for legislative rules, Skidmore for interpretive ones (Mead).
👉 So in short:
Legislative rules = law-like, binding, formal procedure needed.
Interpretive rules = explanatory, persuasive, flexible, no formal procedure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments