Access to Judicial Review of Agency Action under Administrative Law
Access to Judicial Review of Agency Action under Administrative Law
1. Introduction
Administrative agencies play a crucial role in executing government policies by promulgating regulations, making decisions, and enforcing laws. However, their actions must be subject to judicial review to ensure legality, fairness, and protection of rights.
Access to judicial review means a party affected by an agency’s action can challenge it in a court of law.
2. Legal Basis for Judicial Review
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the primary statute governing judicial review of federal agency actions.
The APA allows courts to review final agency actions unless:
There is a statutory preclusion of review, or
The action is committed to agency discretion by law.
The courts apply standards such as whether the action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
3. Requirements for Access to Judicial Review
Finality: The agency action must be “final,” meaning it:
Marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process.
Determines rights or obligations or produces legal consequences.
Standing: The plaintiff must have standing—a concrete and particularized injury caused by the agency action and redressable by the court.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Plaintiffs generally must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.
4. Important Case Law
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)
Facts:
Drug manufacturers challenged an FDA regulation before it was enforced, claiming it was unlawful.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that pre-enforcement review is allowed if the agency action is final and legal issues are fit for judicial decision.
Significance:
Established the test for ripeness and allowed early judicial review of agency rules that have immediate and practical legal effects.
Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989) (hypothetical example to explain exhaustion)
Principle (general):
Before seeking judicial review, parties must exhaust all available administrative remedies unless exhaustion would be futile or cause irreparable harm.
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the FDA’s refusal to take enforcement action against certain drugs.
Holding:
The Court held that the FDA’s decision not to act is presumptively unreviewable because it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Significance:
Not all agency actions are subject to judicial review—discretionary decisions not to enforce generally are not.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Facts:
Citizens challenged the Department of Transportation’s decision to use public parkland for a highway.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that courts must ensure agency actions are not arbitrary or capricious, and must review the administrative record.
Significance:
Established the “arbitrary and capricious” standard as central to judicial review.
5. Standards of Review
Courts may apply different standards depending on the issue:
Arbitrary and Capricious Test: The agency must have examined relevant data and articulated a rational basis.
Substantial Evidence Test: In formal adjudications or rulemakings, courts review whether the agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
De Novo Review: Rarely, courts review questions of law anew.
6. Limitations and Barriers
Statutory Barriers: Congress may limit or exclude judicial review for certain agency actions.
Political Question Doctrine: Courts avoid review when issues are committed to another branch.
Sovereign Immunity: The government’s immunity may restrict suits.
7. Summary
Access to judicial review is essential for holding agencies accountable.
Judicial review is available for final agency actions causing legal consequences.
Plaintiffs must have standing and exhaust administrative remedies.
Courts apply standards like arbitrary and capricious or substantial evidence to evaluate agency decisions.
Some agency decisions, especially prosecutorial discretion or non-final actions, may not be reviewable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments