5 U.S.C. § 553
Rule making
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
In subsection (a)(1), the words “or naval” are omitted as included in “military”.
In subsection (b), the word “when” is substituted for “in any situation in which”.
In subsection (c), the words “for oral presentation” are substituted for “to present the same orally in any manner”. The words “sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection” are substituted for “the requirements of sections 1006 and 1007 of this title shall apply in place of the provisions of this subsection”.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002, referred to in subsec. (b)(4), is section 206(d) of Pub. L. 107–347, which is set out in a note under section 3501 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.
Section 553 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2245 of Title 7, Agriculture.
2023—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 118–9 added par. (4).
Ex. Ord. No. 12044,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,977
cases (376 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 587 U.S. 566 (2019).
Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 587 U.S. 566 (2019). “5 U. S. C. §553 (a)(2). Soon enough, though, the government volunteered to follow the informal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures found in the APA when proceeding under the Medicare Act.”
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “5 U.S.C. § 553 (b)(3) (Federal Register notice must include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.”
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009). “§ 553 , because it was promulgated without providing the required 30-day notice for comment and because the Attorney General's reliance on the "good cause" exception to the notice and comment requirement was misplaced.”
North Carolina Growers' Ass'n v. United Farm Workers, 702 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2012). “We primarily consider: (1) whether the Department’s action constituted "rule making" under the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 , and 701 through 706; and (2) if the action was "rule making," whether the Department satisfied the APA’s "notice and com-…”
Richard A. Batterton, Sec'y of Emp. & Soc. Servs. of the State of Maryland v. F. Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, 648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “” 5 U.S.C. § 553 (a)(2) (1976). Here, however, DOL has expressly waived this exemption by its own regulation which provides: It is the policy of the Secretary of Labor that in applying the rule making provisions of the APA the exemption therein for rules relating to public…”
Simon v. E. Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976). “Plaintiffs' second claim was that the issuance of Revenue Ruling 69-545 without a *34 public hearing and an opportunity for submission of views had violated the rulemaking procedures of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 553 . The theory of this claim was that the Ruling should be considered…”
State of Texas v. USA, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). “See 5 U.S.C. § 553 . Second, the states claimed that DHS lacked the authority to implement the program even if it followed the correct rulemaking process, such that DAPA was substantively unlawful under the APA.”
United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2009). “; see 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b)(B), (d)(3). The Attorney General justified that claim with the following statement: The immediate effectiveness of this rule is necessary to eliminate any possible uncertainty about the applicability of the Act's requirementsand related means of…”
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Donald Trump, 932 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2018). “§ 1158 (a)(1), and second, the Attorney General failed to follow the procedures for enacting the Rule, see 5 U.S.C. § 553 . The Government now seeks a stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order pending appeal.”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). “Rulings are not preceded by notice and comment as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 553 , they "do not carry the force of law and are not, like regulations, intended to clarify the rights and obligations of importers beyond the specific case under review.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). “[43] Section 4 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 553 , specifies that an agency shall afford interested persons general notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment before a substantive rule is promulgated.”
United States v. Billy Reynolds, 710 F.3d 498 (3rd Cir. 2013). “The Attorney General did not provide the period for notice and comment required under 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b), nor did he provide the minimum thirty-day delay before the rule became effective under 5 U.”
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) — 1 case
Nat'l Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass'n of Am. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 754 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2) — 2 cases
Neighborhood Legal Servs., Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 466 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Conn. 1979).
Mission Organic Ctr., Inc. (Tax Ct. 2025).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) — 9 cases
Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. FCC, 921 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 915 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Lakes Gas Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 477 F. Supp. 187 (D. Minnesota 1979).
Am. Med. Ass'n v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 358 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2025).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3) — 1 case
Robert W. Hall v. United States Env't Cfr Prot. Agency, 263 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2001).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A) — 4 cases
State v. Harenda Enter., Inc., 2008 WI 16 (Wis. 2008).
Nelson v. Betit, 937 P.2d 1298 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Fry, 904 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C. 1995).
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2011).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(4)(A) — 1 case
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(8)(A) — 2 cases
Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000).
Concourse Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. Inc. v. DeBuono, 179 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A) — 6 cases
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 716 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1983).
Dimaren v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 398 F. Supp. 556 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
TASTY BAKING Co. v. Cost of Living Council, 395 F. Supp. 1367 (E.D. Pa. 1975).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(AHB) — 1 case
Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B) — 2 cases
Oregon Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006).
State of Oklahoma v. United States (6th Cir. 2025).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) — 6 cases
Somer v. Woodhouse, 623 P.2d 1164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Nat'l Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Weinberger, 366 F. Supp. 1341 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
South Terminal Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 504 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1974).
Buckeye Power, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 481 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1973).
Hmtx Indus. LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(d) — 1 case
Swanson v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 312 N.W.2d 833 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(1) — 1 case
Grier v. Hood, 46 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2002).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3) — 1 case
Colorado Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 1049 (Colo. 1988).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Rainbow Fam., 695 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Tex. 1988).
— 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) — 2 cases
Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. Deb Haaland, 58 F.4th 412 (9th Cir. 2023).
Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1989).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.