Reform of adjudication system
1. Overview of APA §702:
APA §702 provides the general right to judicial review for "final agency actions." It states:
"A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof."
This means that if an individual or entity is harmed by an agency's decision or action, they have the right to challenge that action in court.
Key Elements of Judicial Review under §702:
Aggrieved Person – The plaintiff must show they are adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency action.
Agency Action – There must be a "final agency action" to review.
Judicial Reviewability – The court must have jurisdiction and the action must be reviewable (some agency actions are exempt).
Statutory Interpretation – Courts interpret §702 in light of the specific statute governing the agency.
Important Case Laws Illustrating Judicial Review under APA §702:
1. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
Issue: Standing to sue under APA §702.
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged federal regulations under the Endangered Species Act, claiming harm due to habitat destruction abroad.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show concrete and particularized injury.
Significance: Even if §702 allows judicial review, plaintiffs must meet constitutional standing requirements (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability).
Takeaway: Not all aggrieved parties under §702 qualify for judicial review unless they satisfy Article III standing.
2. Bennett v. Spear (1997)
Issue: What qualifies as "final agency action" under APA §702.
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged a biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding water management.
Holding: The Court clarified that for agency action to be final, it must (1) mark the "consummation" of the agency's decision-making process, and (2) determine rights or obligations or have legal consequences.
Significance: This case defines "final agency action," a threshold requirement for judicial review under §702.
Takeaway: Only final, definitive agency decisions are reviewable; tentative or procedural steps are not.
3. Heckler v. Chaney (1985)
Issue: When agency inaction (non-enforcement) is reviewable.
Facts: Death row inmates sought judicial review of the FDA’s refusal to enforce regulations regarding execution drugs.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that agency decisions not to take enforcement action are presumptively unreviewable.
Significance: §702 does not automatically allow review of agency refusals to act; discretion is given unless there's a clear statutory mandate otherwise.
Takeaway: Agency inaction generally escapes judicial review unless the statute mandates action.
4. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
Issue: Scope and standard of judicial review under APA.
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged the Secretary of Transportation’s decision to approve highway construction through a park.
Holding: The Court ruled that courts must review the administrative record and determine if the agency action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Significance: Established the “arbitrary and capricious” standard as a central mode of review under APA §702.
Takeaway: Courts can overturn agency decisions lacking a rational basis or proper procedure.
5. Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians (1986)
Issue: When the denial of benefits is subject to judicial review.
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged denial of Medicare benefits.
Holding: The Court held that although §702 provides a broad right to judicial review, courts cannot review agency action that is committed to agency discretion by law.
Significance: Established the "committed to agency discretion" exception to judicial review under §702.
Takeaway: Some agency actions are unreviewable if statutes commit the decision exclusively to agency discretion.
Summary of Judicial Review under APA §702 Through Cases:
| Case | Key Principle | Effect on §702 Review |
|---|---|---|
| Lujan v. Defenders | Constitutional standing required | Limits who can sue |
| Bennett v. Spear | Definition of final agency action | Finality threshold |
| Heckler v. Chaney | No review of agency inaction | Limits review of non-actions |
| Overton Park | Arbitrary and capricious standard | Standard of review |
| Bowen v. Michigan | Some actions unreviewable | Discretionary actions exempt |
In essence:
§702 provides a broad right to judicial review of agency actions.
Courts will only review final agency actions.
The party must have standing.
Courts apply the arbitrary and capricious standard, unless another applies.
Certain actions, especially discretionary decisions and agency non-enforcement, may be exempt from review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments