Interim final rules
🔎 What Are Interim Final Rules (IFRs)?
Interim Final Rules are a type of administrative regulation issued by government agencies that take immediate legal effect without first going through the full public notice-and-comment rulemaking process required under laws like the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the U.S.
However, unlike "final rules," IFRs typically allow for post-promulgation public comments — the rule is already in force but can be modified later.
⚖️ Legal Questions Surrounding IFRs:
Courts have had to weigh in on:
When is it legally permissible to issue an IFR?
Do IFRs violate procedural due process or statutory requirements?
What counts as "good cause" to skip prior notice and comment?
How do affected parties challenge an IFR?
📚 Detailed Case Law: Interim Final Rules in Court
✅ 1. U.S. v. Dean (2009)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Facts: The Attorney General issued an interim final rule under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), applying it retroactively. Dean was convicted for failing to register, but argued that the IFR was invalid since it bypassed notice-and-comment.
Issue: Did the AG have "good cause" to skip the APA's notice-and-comment requirement?
Holding: The court found no adequate justification for immediate implementation and declared the rule invalid. The AG failed to show that skipping the procedure was necessary or in the public interest.
Significance: Reinforced that "good cause" exceptions under APA must be narrowly construed.
✅ 2. HealthBridge Mgmt., LLC v. NLRB (2013)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Facts: The National Labor Relations Board issued an IFR during a government shutdown affecting labor rights, bypassing standard procedures.
Issue: Was the use of the IFR justified by the circumstances?
Holding: The court ruled that while emergencies can justify an IFR, economic disruption alone doesn’t meet the “good cause” requirement.
Significance: Established that inconvenience or delay does not justify skipping democratic processes in rulemaking.
✅ 3. Tennessee Medical Association v. HHS (1997)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts: The Department of Health and Human Services issued an IFR concerning Medicare payments without prior public input.
Issue: Was the urgency sufficient to avoid notice-and-comment?
Holding: The court invalidated the IFR, noting that the agency had time and opportunity to go through standard rulemaking but chose not to.
Significance: Agencies cannot create urgency through delay or poor planning.
✅ 4. Fertilizer Institute v. EPA (1994)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Facts: EPA issued an IFR on hazardous waste standards, claiming "good cause" due to public health risks.
Issue: Was the health concern sufficient to justify the use of an IFR?
Holding: The court upheld the IFR, stating that protecting public health from immediate danger can justify bypassing standard procedures.
Significance: Shows courts can support IFRs in genuine emergencies, especially for public safety.
✅ 5. Methodist Hospital of Sacramento v. Shalala (1997)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Facts: A hospital challenged Medicare reimbursement rules issued as IFRs.
Issue: Could the Secretary of HHS implement payment changes via an IFR without advance public input?
Holding: The court said yes — because Congress had explicitly authorized the use of IFRs in this case.
Significance: When statutes explicitly allow IFRs, agencies have greater leeway.
✅ 6. National Women, Infants, and Children Grocers Ass’n v. Food & Nutrition Service (2014)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts: The USDA issued an IFR altering eligibility criteria for retailers in the WIC program.
Issue: Were retailers denied due process when the agency bypassed notice and comment?
Holding: The court ruled that while the IFR was binding, post-promulgation comments and the possibility of revision helped satisfy due process.
Significance: Shows that post-promulgation comment can sometimes mitigate the risk of unfairness.
📌 Summary: What Courts Require for Interim Final Rules
| Requirement | Judicial Approach |
|---|---|
| Good Cause Exception | Must be narrowly interpreted, not based on convenience |
| Emergencies | Allowed if urgent public interest is proven |
| Post-comment opportunity | Important for procedural fairness |
| Statutory Authorization | Can override APA limits if explicitly permitted |
| Judicial Scrutiny | Courts demand real justification, not speculation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments