The D.C. Circuit’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine – which required federal agencies to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking when they substantially altered an “interpretive” rule – is dead, the Supreme Court held yesterday.
The Court heard argument Monday in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (consolidated with Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association). Here is the question presented in the Solicitor General’s cert. petition: Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
Brian Wolfman is the Edwin A. Heafey, Jr. Visiting Professor at the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Bradley Girard graduated from Georgetown Law in 2014.
On Monday, the Court decided Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, holding that the cost of document translation is not a taxable cost under the federal cost-shifting statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
As you probably do not recall (or never knew), in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, the Court is considering whether 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) — which authorizes district courts to tax as costs “compensation of interpreters” — allows a court to award costs for the translation of foreign-language documents into English.
Mr. Wolfman gratefully acknowledges the substantial assistance of Tom McSorley, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law Center. On February 21, the Court will hear oral argument in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific.