Today in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, the Supreme Court held that when an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.  The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision and overturned the doctrine established in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., in which the D.C. Circuit held that an agency must use the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a previously adopted interpretation.  Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined, and in which Justice Alito joined in part.  Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.  Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed opinions concurring in the judgment.