Right to judicial review under APA §702
1. Meaning of Judicial Review under APA §702
Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 1946 provides that:
A person suffering legal wrong or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action is entitled to judicial review.
The U.S. government cannot use the defense of sovereign immunity against such claims if the challenge is directed at an agency action.
This establishes the right to judicial review of agency decisions, unless:
A statute explicitly precludes review, or
Agency action is committed to agency discretion by law (APA §701(a)).
Thus, §702 makes judicial review the default rule, subject to limited exceptions.
2. Scope and Limitations
Review is available for both rulemaking and adjudication.
Relief can be injunctive, declaratory, or setting aside an agency action.
Damages are not permitted under APA §702, only equitable remedies.
The courts check whether the action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law (§706 standard).
3. Detailed Case Laws
(i) Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)
Facts: The FDA issued regulations requiring prescription drug manufacturers to print generic drug names on labels. Drug companies challenged this before enforcement.
Issue: Was pre-enforcement judicial review of agency regulations allowed?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held judicial review was allowed because APA §702 grants standing to parties "adversely affected." Waiting for enforcement would cause serious hardship (economic harm, compliance costs).
Significance: Established the presumption of judicial review and allowed pre-enforcement review of agency rules.
(ii) Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp (1970)
Facts: Data processing companies challenged a Comptroller of Currency ruling that allowed banks to offer data processing services, claiming it hurt their businesses.
Issue: Did competitors have standing under APA §702?
Ruling: The Court held they had standing. To qualify, a plaintiff must show:
Injury in fact (economic or otherwise), and
The interest is "arguably within the zone of interests" protected by the statute.
Significance: Expanded standing doctrine under §702, making judicial review accessible to broader groups.
(iii) Bennett v. Spear (1997)
Facts: Ranchers challenged a Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion that restricted water use to protect endangered fish species.
Issue: Was the biological opinion a "final agency action" reviewable under §702?
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the biological opinion had a direct and appreciable legal consequence, making it a final action subject to review.
Significance: Strengthened judicial review by clarifying what counts as a final agency action under §702.
(iv) Heckler v. Chaney (1985)
Facts: Prisoners sentenced to death argued that FDA should regulate the drugs used for lethal injections. FDA refused, and they sought review.
Issue: Was the agency’s decision not to enforce reviewable under §702?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held non-enforcement decisions are generally not reviewable because they are "committed to agency discretion by law" (§701(a)(2)).
Significance: Carved out an important limitation to judicial review: courts cannot force agencies to enforce laws unless Congress provides standards.
(v) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
Facts: Environmental groups challenged a regulation that limited the Endangered Species Act’s scope to U.S. territory. They argued agency action abroad still harmed them.
Issue: Did they have standing under §702?
Ruling: The Court held they lacked standing because they did not show a concrete, particularized injury; generalized concern for wildlife abroad was insufficient.
Significance: Narrowed standing requirements under §702 — plaintiffs must show actual or imminent injury, not just abstract harm.
(vi) Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians (1986)
Facts: Physicians challenged Medicare regulations regarding reimbursement rates. Government argued judicial review was barred.
Issue: Could physicians seek judicial review under §702?
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that unless Congress explicitly precludes judicial review, APA §702 ensures access to courts.
Significance: Reaffirmed strong presumption in favor of judicial review.
(vii) Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) (2004)
Facts: Environmental groups sued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), alleging it failed to protect wilderness study areas from off-road vehicle damage.
Issue: Could a "failure to act" be challenged under §702?
Ruling: Only if the failure involves a discrete, legally required action. Broad programmatic challenges are not reviewable.
Significance: Limited review of agency inaction, requiring specific statutory duties.
4. Conclusion
APA §702 is the gateway to judicial review of federal agency action.
Courts generally favor review (Abbott Labs, Bowen) but limit it through standing doctrine (Lujan), final agency action requirements (Bennett), and non-reviewable discretion (Heckler, SUWA).
Together, these cases shape the balance between agency autonomy and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments