1. “Considering Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), how should ‘officially ordered or approved’ in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) be interpreted?”
2. “Is this a case in which ‘the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion’ such that the Office of Personnel Management (‘OPM’) has authority to adopt its writing requirement? Loper, 603 U.S. at 394.”
3. “Is there a statutory provision (e.g., 5 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 5548) that provides such authority?”
1. “[T]he best interpretation of the overtime statute is that Congress mandated an authorization process for directing or ratifying overtime but did not determine the requisite formalities in the statutory text. To the extent the Government has argued that the plain language of the statute requires that such overtime orders or approvals must be in writing, we do not agree; nor do we give any deference to the agency interpretation of the language of the statute. We conclude that Congress contemplated formalities when it required overtime to be ‘officially ordered or approved,’ but was silent as to the requisite formalities.”
2. “[W]e conclude that Congress expressly delegated rulemaking authority to OPM to prescribe regulations necessary for administering the overtime statute, subject to approval by the President. . . . Because OPM has discretionary authority to regulate the authorization process for overtime, OPM has the authority to require that such orders or approvals be in writing so long as it is necessary for administering the overtime statute.”
3. “Congress delegated rulemaking authority to OPM to ‘prescribe regulations, subject to the approval of the President, necessary for the administration of this subchapter.’ 5 U.S.C. § 5548(a).”
