## Facts

- A Texas public employer operating a district adult probation department employed probation officers potentially subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime requirements.
- The FLSA exempts employees employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity as defined by Department of Labor (DOL) regulations in 29 C.F.R. Part 541.
- In 1974, the DOL Wage and Hour Administrator issued an opinion letter indicating that certain probation officers described in that request qualified as exempt administrative employees.
- In 1988, the DOL issued two opinion letters concluding that probation officers of the type described were not exempt as executive, administrative, or professional employees under Part 541.
- The 1988 letters were not addressed to the probation department, but the department alleged the letters would guide DOL enforcement and affect its overtime obligations and potential liability.
- The department sued the Secretary of Labor seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the 1988 letters effectively changed binding law without APA notice-and-comment and violated due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1988 DOL opinion letters constituted “final agency action” reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), supporting subject-matter jurisdiction for a pre-enforcement suit.
2. Whether the opinion letters functioned as de facto legislative rules (requiring notice and comment) rather than nonbinding interpretive guidance.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the 1988 opinion letters were not “final agency action” under the APA.
- Because there was no final agency action, the court did not reach the merits of the APA notice-and-comment or Fifth Amendment due process claims.

## Legal Principles

- APA judicial review generally extends only to “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.”
- Agency opinion letters that provide informal, advisory interpretations typically are not final agency action because they do not impose obligations, deny rights, or fix legal relationships.
- Interpretive guidance that applies existing statutory or regulatory standards to described facts lacks the force of law associated with legislative rules.
- A document’s practical influence on enforcement decisions does not, without direct and immediate legal consequences, convert it into final agency action.
- Regulated parties may ordinarily contest an agency’s interpretation in later enforcement proceedings or private litigation, which can be an adequate avenue for judicial review.

## Conclusion

The court held that DOL opinion letters addressing the FLSA exemption status of probation officers were nonbinding interpretive statements and not final agency action, so a federal court lacked jurisdiction to provide pre-enforcement declaratory or injunctive relief challenging those letters.


Taylor-Callahan-Coleman Cntys. Dist. Adult Prob. Dep't v. Dole, 948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991)