Which case is significant because an agency must follow its own regulations, even when those regulations are more restrictive than the law requires?

Which case is significant because an agency must follow its own regulations, even when those regulations are more restrictive than the law requires?

• A. Greene v. McElroy
• B. Department of the Navy v. Egan
• C. Service v. Dulles
• D. Adam v. Laird

Answer: (C)

The core idea here is that an agency’s published regulations carry binding force on how the agency must act, even if the statute it administers could be read to allow a looser or different outcome. Service v. Dulles embodies this by showing that denaturalization and similar actions are governed by the procedural rules the agency has published. The court emphasized that the agency must adhere to its own established procedures, including any due-process requirements, rather than bypassing them with the statute’s broader language. In practice, the agency’s rules create a floor for process and protections that the agency cannot disregard just because the statute might permit a simpler path. The other cases address different issues—security clearance decisions, constitutional protections in other contexts, or standing and remedies—and do not establish this particular principle of being bound by the agency’s own regulations when those regulations are stricter than what the statute requires.

The core idea here is that an agency’s published regulations carry binding force on how the agency must act, even if the statute it administers could be read to allow a looser or different outcome. Service v. Dulles embodies this by showing that denaturalization and similar actions are governed by the procedural rules the agency has published. The court emphasized that the agency must adhere to its own established procedures, including any due-process requirements, rather than bypassing them with the statute’s broader language. In practice, the agency’s rules create a floor for process and protections that the agency cannot disregard just because the statute might permit a simpler path. The other cases address different issues—security clearance decisions, constitutional protections in other contexts, or standing and remedies—and do not establish this particular principle of being bound by the agency’s own regulations when those regulations are stricter than what the statute requires.