Roger C. Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs. Sourcebook of Federal Judicial Review Statues. Recommendation , Agency Litigation Webpages. Recommendation , Severability in Agency Rulemaking. Recommendation , Remand Without Vacatur.
Recommendation , Enforcement of Petroleum Price Regulations. Recommendation , Modification and Dissolution of Orders and Injunctions. Charles W. Stephanie J. Recommendation , Improving the Environment for Agency Rulemaking. Jeffrey S. May 5, Jerry L. Mark H. Paul R. Avocados Plus , F. Sec'y of the Navy, F. This provision requires agencies that deny such a petition to provide a brief statement of the ir reasons for that decision.
An agency's denial is judicially reviewable, see Massachusetts v. United States , F. Courts may overturn decisions that are unsupported by substantial evidence in formal proceedings, although review of an agency's factual findings in other circumstances is governed by the "arbitrary-and-capricious" standard.
See Assoc. See infra note This exemption would appear to apply to not only Congress and the courts directly but also agencies within the legislative and judicial branches. Congressional agencies include, for example, the Government Accountability Office; judicial agencies include the Federal Judicial Center and the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Franklin v. Massachusetts, U. However, the Court ruled that the President is still subject to constitutional claims arising outside of the APA. Sawyer, U. Meyer v. Bush, F. Andrus, F. Walters, F. Wall, F. FCC, F. Safety Equip. Ass'n, Inc. EPA, F. See also Barry v. SEC, No. March 7, "The press release is therefore not 'final' action subject to review under the APA. Some courts have wrapped this requirement into the ripeness inquiry, concluding that a claim is not ripe if it does involve final agency action.
Dep't of Energy, F. Sullivan, F. Bennett v. Air Lines, Inc. Waterman S. Marine Terminal Assn. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, U. Dalton v. Specter, U. The situations in which guidance documents constitute final agency action are disputed.
Compare Nat'l Mining Assoc. McCarthy, F. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Army Corps of Engineers constituted final agency action. Johnson v. Robison, U. In addition, judicial review may be precluded in one court because the statute establishes a comprehensive scheme that funnels review into a particular court in specific circumstances. Thunder Basin Coal Co. Reich, U. Dep't of Treasury, S.
See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr. Heckler , U. Chaney , 52 U. Webster v. Doe, U. The Webster Court did preserve the plaintiff employee's ability to bring constitutional claims in federal court, ruling that the statute did not preclude such suits.
Closely related to this inquiry is an agency's compliance with procedural requirements contained in the APA or another statute. Pierce, Jr. See generally FCC v. Brand X Internet Servs. The Court has indicated that the analysis at Chevron step two, examining whether the agency's construction is reasonable, largely overlaps with arbitrary-and-capricious review. Judulang v. Holder, S. Shalala, 70 F. See Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero , 92 Va.
For a critical analysis of the merits and application of the Mead doctrine, see Adrian Vermeule, Introduction: Mead in the Trenches , 71 Geo. Barnhart v. Walton, U. Pursuant to this multi-factor analysis, lower federal courts have sometimes applied Chevron deference to agency interpretations arrived at through less formal means than notice-and-comment rulemaking. Thompson, F. See Linda D. Further, the Court found it "especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS , which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort.
EPA, S. The agency reasoned that nicotine is a "drug" within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See 21 U.
Mead , U. The Court has declined to adopt Chevron deference for a variety of agency actions that do not carry the force of law. Navarro, S. Conservation v. Predicting differences in outcomes based on these types of review can be difficult. For example, while de novo review does not require a court to give any deference to an agency interpretation of a statute, it seems unlikely that, even absent Skidmore deference, a reviewing court would refuse outright to consider an agency's view on a matter challenged by a plaintiff.
See Melissa F. Skidmore , U. See Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc. Sorenson Commc'ns Inc. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, F. Dep't of Justice, F. Staffing Grp. II, L. Hearing Officer, F. Auer v. Robbins, U. Commentators also refer to the doctrine as Seminole Rock deference. Davis L. In Bowles v. Decker v. Some courts have remarked that the degree of deference to agency regulations may be greater than to agency statutory interpretations. See Capital Network Sys. However,distinguishing between the two doctrines may be difficult analytically.
Paralyzed Veterans of Am. Arena L. Bankers Ass'n, S. See Martin v. Bowles , U. See Auer , U. Alaska Conservation Council, U. Coke, U. But see Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. Compare Thomas Jefferson Univ. Shalala, U. See Decker v. While some Justices appear poised to overrule Auer if given the chance, others may be more inclined to simply cabin the scope of the doctrine. Mortgage Bankers , S. On May 16, , the Court denied certiorari to a petition that called for the Court to overrule Auer.
Justice Thomas issued an opinion dissenting from the denial that restated his and Justice Scalia's objections to the doctrine. Bible, S. Agency factual findings made during formal proceedings are reviewed under a substantial evidence test, 5 U. NLRB, U. Lower courts appear to agree, however, that the difference in the amount of necessary supporting evidence between this standard and factual findings made during informal proceedings is nominal, Data Processing , F. Although formal proceedings must be supported with evidence found within the record, decisions in informal proceedings can be supported with any evidence an agency possessed when it made its determination.
See Safe Extensions, Inc. Courts and commentators often refer to this doctrine as "hard look" review. The Court's holding that review under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard is not more stringent simply because an agency changes course arguably contrasts with Skidmore 's teaching that an agency's consistent interpretation may be more persuasive than an altered one.
One way to reconcile the two cases might be that in the former situation, an agency change is not detrimental to its validity, while in the latter, an agency's consistency renders its position more likely to be upheld than otherwise; that is , a modification to an agency position does not render an agency decision suspect, but a consistent legal interpretation might be an indication that the interpretation is valid.
Another possible explanation for the difference in the Court's assessment of the relevance of agency consistency might be to distinguish review of an agency's discretionary policy choice in FCC v.
Fox from review of an agency's legal interpretation of a statutory provision in Skidmore. For a discussion of these cases and the complicated question of judicial review of agency changes, see Randy J. But see supra note noting that whether an agency's change in an interpretation of its own regulations receives less deference than a consistent interpretation appears unsettled.
That said, courts still must adequately explain changes when an agency's "new policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy; or when its prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. This requirement, however, does not stem from the change itself; rather, it derives from the need for a "reasoned explanation.
State Farm , U. FCC, 22 F. Dierckman, F. Dep't of the Treasury, 93 F. FERC, F. Ass'n of Private Sector Colls. Duncan, F. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. Labor Relations Auth. Bureau of Land Mgmt. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. Office of Commc'n of United Church of Christ v.
NRDC, U. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, F. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. Compare Bi-Metallic Inv. State Bd. Denver, U. The APA mandates certain procedures when agencies conduct formal and informal adjudications, id. More stringent requirements apply when agencies conduct "formal rulemaking," id.
The most common process for issuing rules is under the latter category. See Gen. Dep't of Labor, F. Shalala, F. Dep't of Agric. Johnson, F. Waste Mgmt. See Perez v. Bankers Ass ' n, S. Council, Inc. Vermont Yankee , U. Perez , S. Circuit doctrine formulated by Paralyzed Veterans of America. Circuit's ruling in the case below.
The Scope of a Court's Review If an aggrieved party can convince a court that he or she has standing, that all available administrative remedies have been exhausted, and that the case is ripe for judicial review, the court will hear the case, but the scope of its review is limited.
The law seeks to give agencies enough freedom of action to do their work, while ensuring that individual rights will be protected. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that courts may not second-guess agencies when the agencies are exercising discretion that has been granted to them by statute. A court is generally limited to asking whether the agency went outside the authority granted to it; whether it followed proper procedures in reaching its decision; and whether the decision is so clearly wrong that it must be set aside.
The court also may set aside an agency decision that is clearly wrong. The court usually will accept the agency's findings of fact, but it is free to determine how the law will be applied to those facts.
0コメント