About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (September 17, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govdbxm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Resarh Service Judicial Review of Actions Legally Committed to an Agency's Discretion September 17, 2020 Individuals and entities affected by a federal agency's action sometimes may be able to challenge that action in federal court. In some cases, an agency's governing statute specifically authorizes affected parties to bring suit challenging a particular agency action. But even when specific statutory authority is unavailable, a person generally can challenge an agency's action in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On review, the APA empowers courts to set aside agency action that is, among other things, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The Supreme Court has explained that the APA embodies the basic presumption of judicial review of agency action, meaning that judicial review under the APA generally will be available to a party. But not every legal challenge of an agency's action is reviewable. Constitutional and prudential considerations may limit when a court will entertain such a suit. Jurisdictional requirements must also be satisfied. The APA itself limits judicial review of certain types of agency action. Specifically, the APA bars judicial review of an agency's action when (1) a particular statute precludes review of that action or (2) the action is committed to agency discretion by law. While the first exception applies when a statute reflects Congress's intent to preclude judicial review, the second-codified at 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2)-often requires a more searching examination about whether the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. (The APA also bars judicial review in other ways, including by limiting court review to agency actions that are final.) Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's general approach to assessing when a particular action is committed to agency discretion under Section 701 (a)(2), which typically consists of reviewing an underlying statute to determine if guidelines or standards exist that allow judicial evaluation of the action. But the Court's approach offers Congress guidance for crafing statutes in a way that reviewing courts may read as preventing or, alternatively, authorizing court review of particular actions. The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 701(a)(2) The Supreme Court has often been tasked with considering whether an agency's action has been committed to agency discretion under Section 701(a)(2). In Citizens to Preserie Overton Park v. Votbpe, Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10536 CF-S LegMa Sideba Prepai-ed for Mernbei-s and Comrm ttees of Conress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most