The Change-in-Position Doctrine After Centro De Trabajadores (D.C. Cir.)

Key Takeaways

• D.C. Circuit limited *Centro* ruling to clear statutory interpretations
• Change‑in‑position doctrine remains enforceable for policy discretion
• Agencies must consider reliance interests when altering long‑standing policies
• *Loper Bright* does not waive justification for factual‑based policy changes
• Courts may still require reasoned explanations despite statutory clarity

Summary

The D.C. Circuit’s opinion in *Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent* refines the change‑in‑position doctrine after *Loper Bright*. The panel affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against an IRS‑ICE memorandum and held that when a statute unambiguously backs an agency’s new interpretation, courts need not demand a reasoned explanation. Thus, *Loper Bright*’s no‑deference rule blocks arbitrary‑and‑capricious challenges to statutory reinterpretations dictated by clear legislative language. The dispute centered on an IRS‑ICE memorandum that would share undocumented taxpayers’ addresses with immigration officials, a move the plaintiffs argued was arbitrary.

Pulse Analysis

The D.C. Circuit’s opinion in *Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent* refines the change‑in‑position doctrine after *Loper Bright*. The panel affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against an IRS‑ICE memorandum and held that when a statute unambiguously backs an agency’s new interpretation, courts need not demand a reasoned explanation. Thus, *Loper Bright*’s no‑deference rule blocks arbitrary‑and‑capricious challenges to statutory reinterpretations dictated by clear legislative language. The dispute centered on an IRS‑ICE memorandum that would share undocumented taxpayers’ addresses with immigration officials, a move the plaintiffs argued was arbitrary.

The narrow holding does not erase the doctrine’s force for policy‑driven actions. Agencies must still provide a reasoned justification when they alter policies that create serious reliance interests or rely on factual findings that differ from earlier ones. Courts continue to apply the change‑in‑position requirements in contexts such as workplace‑safety standards or the DACA wind‑down, demanding that agencies assess reliance harms and explain factual shifts. Reliance interests can include costly compliance systems that firms have built around prior agency guidance. Consequently, litigants retain a tool to compel transparency and fairness in agency reversals.

The *Centro* decision signals to federal agencies that clear statutory authority shields them from procedural challenges, but only within a narrow interpretive niche. Agencies should anticipate rigorous review of policy changes that have generated entrenched expectations, documenting reliance analyses and preserving the factual record that supported original rules. For businesses, the ruling preserves a viable avenue to contest abrupt policy flips lacking evidentiary support, reinforcing the balance between agency flexibility and predictability that underpins modern administrative law. Law firms are likely to advise clients to monitor agency rulemaking for hidden factual shifts that could trigger the doctrine.