Attorneys React To High Court's Agency Rule-Making Decision

Law360, New York (March 9, 2015, 6:27 PM EDT) -- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Labor Department, ruling that federal agencies don't have to go through formal rule-making to make significant changes to rules interpreting regulations. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association is significant.

Benjamin Diehl, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

"The potential importance of the Perez case is suggested by the concurrences, which indicate that the Supreme Court may be willing to reconsider how much deference, if any, to give to interpretative opinions in the future. The opinion suggests renewed litigation on that question, particularly if the CFPB...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!