This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Congress has created numerous federal agencies charged with carrying out a broad array of delegated statutory responsibilities. These agencies administer their delegated authority in a variety of ways, including by promulgating rules, conducting adjudications, and bringing enforcement actions against parties for violating statutes or regulations. In addition to delegating authority to these agencies, Congress has also enacted statutes, such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, authorizing federal courts to review agency actions to ensure agencies conduct their business lawfully. Thus, in many circumstances, individuals aggrieved by agency action may bring claims to federal court for redress.
Not all agency actions are subject to judicial review. Whether judicial review of agency action is available in federal court turns on several factors. Courts must possess statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate a lawsuit, and plaintiffs generally must rely on a cause of action that allows a court to grant legal relief. Further, Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to adjudicating "cases" or "controversies." Thus, the justiciability doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness must be satisfied for a party's challenge to proceed. For suits brought under the APA, courts may only review final agency action that is not precluded from review by another statute or legally committed to the agency's discretion.
If the prerequisites for judicial review are met, a party may challenge agency action under the APA. That lawThe U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and any inferior courts established by Congress, limiting the power of federal courts to the context of "cases" or "controversies." Pursuant to constitutional and statutory requirements, courts may hear challenges to the actions of federal agencies in certain situations. This report offers a brief overview of important considerations when individuals bring a lawsuit in federal court to challenge agency actions, with a particular focus on the type of review authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), perhaps the most prominent modern vehicle for challenging the actions of a federal agency.
Whether judicial review of agency action is available in federal court turns on a number of factors. Courts must possess statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate a lawsuit, and plaintiffs must generally rely on a cause of action that allows a court to grant legal relief. Disputes must also present "cases" or "controversies" that satisfy the requirements of Article III of the Constitution. Finally, a suit must be presented to a court at the proper time for judicial review.
The APA directs reviewing courts to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" and to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that violate the law or are otherwise "arbitrary and capricious." This review is limited, however, to "final agency action" that is not precluded from review by another statute or legally committed to the agency's discretion.
Pursuant to this mandate, courts This report offers an overview of issues concerning the justiciability of challenges to agency actions and the scope of review under the APA.are authorized tocan review agency action in a number of contexts. First, courts willCourts can examine the statutory authority for an agency's action and will invalidate agency choices that exceedaction that exceeds these limits. In addition, a court may examine an agency's discretionary decisions, or discrete actions with legal consequences for the public to ensure they are reasonable and adequately explained. Finally, courts may also review an agency's compliance with statutory and regulatory procedural requirements, such as the APA's notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures imposed by the APA. This report provides a broad overview of the issues that may be relevant to any number of present and future challenges to agency action in federal court.
Congress has created numerous federal agencies charged with carrying out a broad array of delegated statutory responsibilities.1 Agencies administer their delegated authority in a variety of ways, including by promulgating rules and regulations that bind the public,2 advising regulated parties of an agency's enforcement priorities via guidance documents,3 bringing enforcement actions against private individuals or corporations for violation ofthat bind the public,2 bringing enforcement actions against parties for violating a statute or regulation,43 and determining whether to grant a benefit54 or license.6 These agency actions, in turn, often generate questions about the legitimacy of an agency's decision. Individuals affected by an agency decision can sometimes challenge that action in federal court as violating a legal requirement.
The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and any inferior courts established by Congress,7 limiting the power of federal courts to the context of a of a "case" or "controversy."8 Pursuant to this authority, Congress has established federal courts below the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a variety of cases, both criminal and civil.9 Federal legislation authorizes courts to adjudicate challenges to actions taken by government officials and agencies in a variety of contexts.10 Federal courts are, however, courts of limited jurisdiction—they must adhere to limits placed on their authority by Congress and the Constitution.11 The circumstances under which a federal court will review the actions of a U.S. government agency or official thus involve complicated questions of statutory and constitutional law. This report offers a brief overview of some of the most important issues arising when individuals bring suit in federal court to challenge agency actions.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is perhaps the most prominent modern vehicle for challenging the actions of a federal agency.12 Enacted in 1946 following the New Deal era, during which the size of the administrative state was expanded, the statute represents the first government-wide attempt to "systematize" requirements on the actions of federal agencies.13 The APA functions as the most prominent authorization of judicial review of agency action, including for agency compliance with substantive legal requirements—such as an agency's "organic," or authorizing, statute.14 In addition, the APA imposes various procedural requirements on federal agencies and authorizes courts to review agency's compliance with these requirements. Accordingly, the focus of this report is largely centered on judicial review of agency actions under the APA.
The report opens with a discussion of the circumstances in which federal courts are empowered to review agency actions15 and follows with a look at the scope of review authorized by the APA.16 It then continues by describing the mechanics of a federal court's review of an agency's statutory authority,17 as well as the standards employed in the review of an agency's discretionary decisions.18 The report concludes with a brief examination of judicial review of agency compliance with statutorily prescribed procedural requirements.19
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the most prominent statutory vehicle for challenging the actions of a federal agency.7 Enacted in 1946 following the expansion of the administrative state during the New Deal era, the statute represents the first government-wide attempt to "systematize" the actions of federal agencies.8 In addition to imposing a set of default procedural requirements for agency rulemaking and adjudication proceedings,9 the APA provides for judicial review of agency conduct.10 Courts may review agency action to ensure that agencies act within the scope of their delegated authority, that agency decisions are reasonable and adequately explained, and that an agency has complied with all applicable procedural requirements.11 To bring a claim in federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy certain prerequisites. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction—they must adhere to limits placed on their authority by Congress and the Constitution.12 Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to adjudicating "cases" or "controversies."13 Thus, any case brought to federal court must satisfy the justiciability doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness to proceed. Further, Congress must provide the court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, and a plaintiff must have a cause of action to seek redress. The circumstances under which a federal court will review agency actions thus involve questions of statutory and constitutional law. The report opens with a discussion of the threshold requirements for seeking judicial review of agency action in federal court.14 It then outlines the scope of review authorized by the APA.15 It explains how courts review agency actions to ensure they comply with statutory authority,16 as well as the standards employed in the review of an agency's discretionary decisions.17 The report concludes with a brief examination of judicial review of agency compliance with statutorily prescribed procedural requirements.18 Not every agency action is necessarily subject to judicial review. Whether judicial review of agency action is available in federal court turns on a number of factors, including constitutional,20 prudential,21 and statutory225 These agency actions can have a significant impact on individuals and the public at large. Therefore, Congress has authorized courts, under certain circumstances, to review agency action to ensure agency compliance with the law.6
.
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.2322 Their authority is restricted to matters entrusted to them by Congress.2423 Consequently, in order to adjudicate a case, a statute must bestow subject matter jurisdiction in a federal court over a particular claim.2524 In addition, suits against the United States are barred absent a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.26
25 This section of the report provides an introduction to these matters in the context of challenging administrative actions.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
As a threshold matter, courts must possess subject -matter jurisdiction over a claim to hear a case.2726 Subject -matter jurisdiction refers to a court's "power" to hear a case.28 The Supreme Court has held that27 Although the APA itself does not provide subject -matter jurisdiction,28 a separate statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,matter jurisdiction.29 In other words, when bringing suit under the APA, plaintiffs must rely on a separate statutory provision to establish jurisdiction in court. A variety of statutes authorize jurisdiction in particular courts to review certain types of claims. For example, certain statutes permit review of particular agency actions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,30 and some statutes may specify that review occurs in a particular federal appellate court.31 In addition, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 bestows upon federal district courts "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."32 This grant of subject matter29 This general federal-question jurisdiction authorizes federal courts to hear claims arising under the APA as well as "nonstatutory"nonstatutory and constitutional claims.30 A variety of other statutes bestow jurisdiction in particular courts to review certain claims. For example, the Hobbs Act (Administrative Orders Review Act) establishes exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction for pre-enforcement review of certain agency orders in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.31 Still other statutes specify that specific circuit courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over certain claims.32
Sovereign Immunity
The and constitutional claims.33
In addition to the requirement that a court exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of a federal statute before adjudicating a case, the doctrine of sovereign immunity shields the United States from suitssuit unless immunity has been waivedCongress has waived immunity by statute.3433 Absent such a waiver, federal courts lack jurisdiction over lawsuits against the United States.3534 A waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied from legislative history or the background context of a statute; rather, it must be clearly expressed in the statutory text.3635 Three primary statutes waive sovereign immunity, thereby permitting lawsuits against the United States in federal court under certain circumstances.3736 First, the APA was amended in 1976 to permit individuals aggrieved by agency action to bring suit in federal court against the United States and government employees in their official capacity.38 However, this statutory waiver37 This statutory waiver, however, does not authorize money damages as a remedy.3938 Second, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) permits suits to be heard in federal court for certain torts committed by agency employees in the course of their employment.4039 In these cases, the United States is substituted as a defendant for the employee who allegedly committed the tort.4140 Unlike the APA, the FTCA permits money damages as a remedy.4241 Third, the Tucker Act permits suits against the United States for breach of contract and certain other monetary claims that do not arise in tort.43
Assuming a federal court has jurisdiction over a suit challenging an agency action, in order to challenge the actions of a federal agency, a plaintiff must also demonstrate that he or she posessespossesses a legal right to seek judicial redress.4443 A plaintiff will have a "cause of action" if he or she "is a member of the class of litigants that may, as a matter of law, appropriately invoke the power of the court."4544 Various statutes explicitly provide such causes of action to enforce legal requirements against federal agencies.4645 Absent a specific statutory framework creating a cause of action, the APA provides a general cause of action for individuals aggrieved by a "final agency action" if "there is no other adequate remedy in a court."47
46
There are other, less common bases for challenges to agency actions. In very limited situations, even lacking an express statutory cause of action, individuals may seek "nonstatutory" review of aan agency action that is "ultra vires."4847 In addition, when a federal official owes a plaintiff a "clear nondiscretionary duty,"4948 federal district courts5049 and appellate courts5150 may issue mandamus relief, which is an order compelling an official "to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."5251 However, the remedy is to be invoked only in "extraordinary circumstances"5352 when "no adequate alternative remedy exists."5453 Finally, the Supreme Court, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FederalFederal Bureau of Narcotics, recognized a common law cause of action against federal officers for damages resulting from violations of constitutional rights.5554 This remedy does not apply to federal agencies.56
In addition to statutory prerequisites for judicial review, certain constitutional and prudential considerations limit when courts will entertain a suit in a case challenging agency action. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have standing to challenge a federal agency's action and. They must also bring a lawsuit at the appropriate time.
Article III of the Constitution defines the proper limits the scope of the federal court jurisdiction as limited to adjudicating "cases" and "controversies."5756 The Supreme Court has articulated several legal doctrines emanating from Article III, as well as various prudential considerations, that further limit the circumstances under which the federal courts will adjudicate disputes respectingregarding federal agencies, such as standing, ripeness, and mootness.5857 In particular, the doctrine of standing is a frequent barrier to plaintiffs challenging agency action.5958 The Supreme Court has notedexpressed the important separation of powers principles that underlie the doctrine,59 emphasizing that while the judiciary is authorized to say what the law is,60 invalidation of congressional legislation or actions of the executive branch should not be taken lightly.61 Courts must, of course, vindicate individual rights, but the judicial power may not be harnessed into a monitoringsupervisory role over federal agencies that should be conducted byreserved for Congress.62
In order to
To satisfy the constitutional requirement of standing, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that he has suffered 'injury in fact,' that the injury is 'fairly traceable' to the actions of the defendant, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision."63 AWith regard to the injury, a plaintiff must assert more than a generalized interest in governance shared by all citizens and instead must have suffered an injury in fact or invasion of a legally protected interest that is (1) concrete and particularized and (2) actual or imminent.64 In addition, a "causal connection" between the alleged injury and challenged conduct is required, such that the injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendantFor the injury to be "fairly traceable" to the defendant's actions, the "line of causation between the [defendant's actions] and [the] injury" cannot be "too attenuated."65 Finally, it must be likely, rather than "merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."66 The doctrine of standing often operates to barbars suits challenging agency action, for example, when plaintiffs seek to vindicate the public interest but personally have not suffered a concrete injury traceable to an agency action.67
A variety of factors also influence when it is proper for a federal court statutory and constitutional considerations related to the timing of a lawsuit also dictate whether a federal court is permitted to adjudicate a challenge to agency action. Foremost among these are statutory deadlinesstatutes of limitations and the doctrines of ripeness, mootness, and exhaustion. Many statutes authorizing judicial review of particular agency actions also impose filing deadlines for such challenges.68 Absent a specific statutory deadline, civil actions against the United States must be filed within six years of when the claim accrued or originated.69
A controversy must also be "ripe" for a federal court decision.70 The doctrine of ripeness derives from Article III limitations on the judiciary's authority, as well as prudential considerations.71 By avoiding the adjudication of suits prematurely, the doctrine aims to protect courts "from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also ... protect[s] the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties."72 In deciding whether a case is ripe, a court considers whether the issues presented in the case are ready for a judicial decision and whether a delay would cause hardship to the parties in the case.73 For example, a court may require a party to show that an agency's action has "adverse effects of a strictly legal kind" or requires the party to adjust their behavior in some way.74 In the context of a challenge to an agency rule, for example, the promulgation of a regulation can make a judicial challenge sufficiently ripe when the rule requires parties to comply with new restrictions or risk serious penalties.75 In contrast, if a regulation does not require parties to alter their day-to-day conduct, judicial review may be more appropriate in the future after application of a rule to parties in a concrete way.76 Likewise, if "further factual development would 'significantly advance [a court's] ability to deal with the legal issues presented,'" the issue may not be ripe for review.77
Federal courts may also decline to hear a case if it is moot.78 A case is moot if the controversy initially existing at the time the lawsuit was filed is no longer "live" due to a change in the law or in the status of the parties involved;79 an act of one of the parties that dissolves the dispute can render the case moot as well.80
Finally, a court might deny review because a party failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before suing in federal court.81 Among other things, the doctrine of exhaustion seeks to avoid unnecessary litigation by requiring the full development of a record before a court examines a case.82 However, the Supreme Court has held that in suits brought under the APA, federal courts lack the power to require parties to exhaust their administrative remedies if no statute or agency rule requires such exhaustion.83 Nonetheless, where the APA does not apply, exhaustion requirements could preclude immediate challenges to federal agency action.
The APA permits judicial review of final agency actions. However, the statute sets important limits on particular matters and entities that qualify for judicial examination under its terms.
As discussed above, the APA contains a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States under certain circumstances,84 providing a cause of action for individuals aggrieved by agency actions to seek judicial review of an agency's decision.85 The APA directs reviewing courts to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" and to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that are:
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title [concerning formal rulemaking86 and adjudicatory proceedings] or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.87
As a result, courts are generally authorized to direct an agency to comply with the law and can invalidate actions that are inconsistent with the agency's statutory authority. Courts may also review an agency's compliance with statutory procedural requirements, such as notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures imposed by other provisions of the APA.88 In addition, a court may examine an agency's discretionary decisions, such as a denial of a rulemaking petition, and invalidate actions that are arbitrary or capricious.89
Judicial review under the APA is limited to examining final agency action that is not committed to agency discretion or precluded from review by a different statute.90 Consequently, defining terms such as "agency," "action," "final," and "committed to agency discretion" is important in understanding when courts will hear a challenge to the decisions of a federal agency.
The scope of review authorized by the APA is limited. The statute imposes restrictions on the types of actions courts may review. For example, a federal court is limited to reviewing the actions of a federal agency, which is defined as an "authority of the United States."91 This definition generally includes all executive branch agencies, including the independent regulatory agencies, but specifically excludes Congress and the judiciary,92 as well as courts martial, military commissions, and military authorities in times of war or in the field.93 Notably, the Supreme Court has held that the definition of agency in the APA does not encompass the President,94 although lower courts had held that entities within the Executive Office of the President may qualify as agencies.95
Review under the APA is also limited to agency action. Agency "action" is defined as "the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act."96 Courts thus may review a wide variety of issues, including agency rules, denials of licenses and permits, and sanctions issued against private parties.97 However, it is important to note that this definition is not comprehensive—courts will deny review if the agency's challenged conduct does not fit within the statutory definition.98 For example, some courts have denied requests for review of agency publications and press releases, as those documents do not necessarily qualify as rules, orders, or sanctions within the meaning of the APA.99
Review under the APA is also limited to final agency action.100 The Supreme Court has articulated two requirements for an agency's action to qualify as final. First, the action may not be tentative or interlocutory in nature, but must represent the "'consummation' of the agency's decisionmaking process."101 Second, it must be an action "by which 'rights or obligations have been determined,' or from which 'legal consequences will flow.'"102 This principle limits the judicial review of a variety of agency "actions" that do not have a final, legally binding consequence. For example, this restriction may bar judicial review of an agency's recommendation to the President to take certain actions, at least as long as that recommendation does not legally bind the President.103 The finality requirement can also, at times, serve to shield certain agency guidance documents from judicial review if such guidance does not legally bind the public.104 On the other hand, individuals are not necessarily required to wait for an enforcement action to be brought against them to challenge an agency's determination. Some actions, such as the issuance of binding regulations, may qualify as final agency action that is subject to judicial review before an enforcement action is brought against a third party.105
Judicial review of agency action under the APA is unavailable in two important situations: (1) when a statute precludes review and (2) when the agency's action is legally comitted to an agency's discretion. The Supreme Court has interpreted the APA as establishing a "basic presumption of judicial review" of agency decisions absent another statute that clearly precludes review in federal court.106 Some statutes expressly preclude judicial review of agency actions.107 In other situations, review may be precluded by implication.108 Determining whether another statute precludes review under the APA may include an examination of that statute's "express language[,] ... the structure of the overall statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved."109 In some cases, judicial review may be precluded because it would contradict congressional intent, such as by disrupting or impeding the intended swift operation of a complex regulatory framework.110 However, in the context of lawsuits alleging constitutional violations, courts have read preclusion provisions narrowly to preserve a federal court's role of reviewing constitutional claims.111
Finally, review under the APA is unavailable if the agency's action is legally committed to the agency's discretion.112 The Supreme Court has noted that an agency's action is committed to its discretion when a statute's terms are so broad that there simply is "no law to apply" in evaluating its requirements.113 In other words, if "the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion," then judicial review is unavailable.114 A prominent example of a matter usually committed to an agency's discretion is the decision not to initiate an enforcement action against a third party.115 The Supreme Court has noted that the decision to initiate an enforcement action involves a "complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [an agency's] expertise" and is "generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion."116 Similarly, the Court has held that an agency's decision to allocate funds from a lump-sum appropriation is committed to an agency's discretion, because the whole purpose of such an appropriation is to grant the agency flexibility to spend funds.117 Likewise, the Court has held that the decision by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discharge an employee for reasons in the "interests of the United States" is committed to agency discretion, a ruling based in part on the overall structure of the relevant statute directing the CIA to gather and protect intelligence sources.118
Once a court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an agency's action, one relevant consideration will be whether the challenged action complies with the law. The APA authorizes courts to "set aside" agency action that is "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right" or otherwise "not in accordance with law."119 Courts thus must often interpret the meaning of statutory provisions to determine if the agency's actions accord with its statutory authority or contradict a legal mandate. This means that courts will invalidate agency actions that contravene the meaning of a governing statute.120
Courts have developed a number of doctrinal tests for conducting this inquiry, with varying amounts of judicial "deference" given to an agency's interpretation of the relevant statute. When reviewing a challenge to an agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers and has the force of law, courts apply the two-step framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.121 Pursuant to that rubric, at "step one," courts examine "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue."122 If so, "that is the end of the matter," and courts must enforce the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."123 In the case of silence or ambiguity in the statute, however, "step two" requires courts to defer to a reasonable agency interpretation, even if the court would have otherwise reached a contrary conclusion.124 This deference is appropriate in certain circumstances because Congress has delegated "authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute"125 and an agency may possess significant expertise concerning the law's administration.126 Some commentators have noted that agency statutory interpretations are more likely to be upheld if the doctrine applies, particulary if the court reaches Chevron's second step.127
In addition to sanctioning an agency interpretation that may depart from a court's reading of a statute, the Chevron doctrine permits agencies to shift their interpretations over time, provided that its new interpretation is a reasonable construction of the statute.128 While a judicial finding that Congress clearly spoke to an issue "displaces a contrary agency construction," a finding of ambiguity, in contrast, may permit an agency to alter its interpretation as a result of changed circumstances.129
Chevron does not apply to every agency interpretation of a statute. The Supreme Court has noted that the Chevron doctrine applies where Congress has delegated to the agency the authority to "speak with the force of law" and the relevant interpretation was "promulgated in the exercise of that authority."130 An important factor in determining whether the doctrine applies—an inquiry sometimes referred to as Chevron "step zero"131—is the formality of the procedures used when issuing the interpretation. The Court has explained that if an agency has been conferred the power to engage in formal adjudications132 or notice-and-comment rulemaking, this likely evidences congressional intent to delegate the authority to speak with the force of law.133 In contrast, "interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law," are generally not accorded Chevron deference.134 However, an agency's interpretation may sometimes warrant Chevron deference in circumstances with less procedural formality than that used in notice-and-comment rulemaking.135 Courts may examine the "interstitial nature" of the issue, the agency's expertise, "the importance of the question to the administration of the statute, the complexity of that administration, and the careful consideration the Agency has given the question over a long period of time" to determine whether Chevron supplies the appropriate lens through which to review the agency's interpretation.136
In addition, the Court has declined to apply Chevron deference in certain cases that present "extraordinary" questions. For example, in King v. Burwell, the Court upheld the Internal Revenue Service's determination137 that the Affordable Care Act "allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act."138 The Court noted that Chevron deference is predicated on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in statutory gaps.139 But the Court noted that whether such tax credits were available was a question of "deep 'economic and political significance'" that was "central to th[e] statutory scheme."140 If Congress had wanted to delegate that determination to the agency, the Court explained, it would have done so explicitly.141 Because the statute did not expressly delegate that decision to the agency, the Court gave no deference to the agency's interpretation and analyzed the statute independently of the agency's position.142 The Court's opinion reaffirms a principle enunciated in a prior case, FDA v. Brown & Williamson.143 In that case, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after years of "having expressly disavowed any such authority since its inception," asserted for the first time in 1996 jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.144 In reviewing the agency's interpretation, the Court noted that "[i]n extraordinary cases ... there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended" to implicitly delegate authority to an agency to fill in statutory gaps.145 The Court noted that the FDA asserted jurisdiction to regulate an industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy and concluded that "Congress could not have intended to delegate a decision of such economic and political significance to an agency" without doing so expressly.146
When Chevron does not apply in a case, courts may give statutory interpretations by agencies less deference.147 This is not to say, however, that agency interpretations necessarily receive no weight at all. The Court indicated in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. that when an agency interprets a "highly detailed" "regulatory scheme" and the agency has "the benefit of specialized experience,"148 then the court accords the agency's interpretation "a respect proportional to its 'power to persuade.'"149 In other words, a court applying Skidmore deference accords an agency's interpretation of a statute a certain amount of respect or weight correlated with the strength of the agency's reasoning.150 Courts will give consideration to the agency's interpretation, the "weight" of which "will depend upon the thoroughness evident in [the agency's] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade."151 At bottom, Skidmore deference recognizes an agency's "power to persuade" based on its "body of experience and informed judgment," but it does not require that agency interpretations be "controlling on the courts."152
Finally, when courts review the legal interpretations of an agency regarding its compliance with statutes it does not administer or the Constitution, such review can be more stringent: Courts sometimes review such matters de novo, or without any deference at all to the agency's interpretation.153 For example, judicial review of an agency's compliance with the APA's procedural provisions,154 certain Freedom of Information Act provisions,155 and the Constitution156 may be conducted de novo because those legal requirements are not entrusted to the discretion of any particular agency.
As indicated above, the default six-year statute of limitations only applies if Congress has not enacted a specific statutory deadline to govern a specific agency action. Many statutes authorizing judicial review of particular agency actions impose their own filing deadlines for such challenges.80 These specific deadlines can vary significantly in length, depending on the policy preferences enacted by Congress.81 Further, as emphasized in Corner Post, the date on which the clock begins to run will depend on the text of the statute—that is, a statute may provide that an action must be brought within a certain time after the action accrues, like in Corner Post, or, alternatively, within a certain time after a specific event has occurred.82 Article III's cases or controversies requirement also mandates that a matter must be ripe for a federal court to review an agency action.83 Ripeness concerns the "timing of judicial intervention" and prevents federal courts from adjudicating cases prematurely.84 The doctrine protects courts "from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also . . . protect[s] . . . agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties."85 In deciding whether a case is ripe, a court considers whether the issues presented in the case are ready for a judicial decision and whether a delay would cause hardship to the parties in the case.86 In analyzing whether a delay would cause hardship, a court may require a party to show that an agency's action has "adverse effects of a strictly legal kind" or requires the party to adjust their behavior in some way.87 In the context of a challenge to an agency rule, the promulgation of a regulation can make a judicial challenge sufficiently ripe when the rule requires parties to comply with new restrictions or risk serious penalties.88 In contrast, if a regulation does not require parties to alter their day-to-day conduct, judicial review may be more appropriate in the future after application of a rule to parties in a concrete way.89 When determining whether a case is fit for judicial decision, a court may examine whether "further factual development would 'significantly advance [a court's] ability to deal with the legal issues presented.'"90 If not, the issue may not be ripe for review.91 The mootness doctrine imposes another limitation on justiciability derived from Article III's case-or-controversy requirement.92 While the ripeness doctrine ensures that a matter is ready for adjudication, the mootness doctrine requires that "an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation."93 Thus, federal courts must decline to hear (or continue to preside over) a case challenging an administrative action if it is moot.94 A case is moot if the controversy initially existing at the time the lawsuit was filed is no longer "live" due to a change in the law or in the status of the parties involved.95 An act by one of the parties that dissolves the dispute can also render a case moot.96 However, the voluntary cessation doctrine provides that "a defendant cannot automatically moot a case by simply ending its unlawful conduct once sued."97 This doctrine prevents a litigant from evading review by temporarily ceasing the unlawful activity and then, after the suit is dismissed, reengaging in the challenged conduct.98 Courts will only dismiss a case as moot due to the voluntary acts of a litigant if it is "absolutely clear" that the allegedly wrongful behavior will not recur.99 At least some federal appellate courts, however, are more willing to dismiss a case as moot when a government actor (such as a federal agency), rather than a private actor, voluntarily ceases challenged conduct.100 As such, when an agency voluntarily repeals or withdraws a challenged rule or policy, courts have declared cases moot despite the agency's potential ability to reinstate the action at a future date.101 Nonetheless, a court must be satisfied that the agency will not resume the challenged conduct.102 A court might deny review because a party failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before suing in federal court.103 Among other things, the doctrine of exhaustion seeks to avoid unnecessary litigation by requiring the full development of an administrative record before a court examines a case.104 However, the Supreme Court has held that in suits brought under the APA, federal courts lack the power to require parties to exhaust their administrative remedies if no statute or agency rule requires such exhaustion.105 Nonetheless, if a challenge to administrative action is brought under a different statute, or if agency regulations require exhaustion, failure to pursue required administrative remedies could preclude immediate judicial challenges to federal agency action.106 Supreme Court precedent provides an exception to exhaustion requirements for certain constitutional challenges. In Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Supreme Court held that parties can bring to federal court constitutional challenges to an agency's structure without first exhausting administrative remedies during an enforcement proceeding.107 Although the FTC brought an enforcement action against the party in its own administrative forum, the Supreme Court held that the party could immediately bring constitutional challenges directly to federal court without first raising those arguments before the agency's own tribunal.108 Although the FTC Act provides that review of an FTC order shall be brought to a federal court of appeals, the Supreme Court allowed the suit to enjoin the enforcement action to proceed in federal district court because the questions regarding the constitutionality of the agency's structure were not the type of questions that the agency were equipped to answer.109 As discussed above, the APA is perhaps the most prominent statutory vehicle for challenging the actions of a federal agency.110 It provides a "strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action."111 Nonetheless, in addition to the limits on the availability to judicial review discussed in the above sections, the APA also provides certain limits on the availability of judicial review for claims brought under the act. For suits brought under the APA, judicial review is available only for "final agency action."112 Further, judicial review is unavailable if another statute precludes judicial review or if the action is "committed to agency discretion by law."113 This section of the report discusses these limitations on the availability of judicial review under the APA. Under the APA, a federal court is limited to reviewing "final agency action."114 Thus, a preliminary question is what constitutes an agency for the purposes of the APA. The APA defines the term broadly as "each authority of the Government of the United States" but then enumerates various entities that are excluded from that definition.115 The definition generally includes all executive branch agencies, including the independent regulatory agencies, but specifically excludes Congress and the judiciary,116 as well as courts-martial, military commissions, and military authorities in times of war or in the field.117 Further, the Supreme Court has held that the definition of agency in the APA does not encompass the President.118 Review under the APA is also limited to agency action, which is defined as "the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act."119 Courts thus may review a wide variety of issues, including agency rules, denials of licenses and permits, and sanctions issued against private parties.120 Courts will deny review if the agency's challenged conduct does not fit within the statutory definition of action.121 For example, some courts have denied requests for review of agency negotiating positions, publications, and press releases, as those documents do not necessarily qualify as rules, orders, or sanctions within the meaning of the APA.122 Further, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff may not "seek wholesale improvement of a [broad regulatory] program by court decree . . . [but] must direct its attack against some particular 'agency action' that causes it harm."123 Thus, courts have held that challenges must target "specific" agency actions, rather than the general operation of broad agency programs or plans.124 Although the APA generally provides for judicial review of final agency action, the law contains certain exceptions.130 One exception is that judicial review will not be available when a separate statute precludes such review.131 However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the APA as establishing a "strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action,"132 and that "only upon a showing of 'clear and convincing evidence' of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review."133 Some statutes expressly preclude judicial review of agency actions.134 In other situations, review may be precluded by implication.135 Determining whether another statute precludes review under the APA may include an examination of that statute's "express language[,] . . . the structure of the overall statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved."136 In some cases, judicial review may be precluded because it would contradict congressional intent, such as by disrupting or impeding the intended swift operation of a complex regulatory framework.137 However, in the context of lawsuits alleging constitutional violations, courts have read preclusion provisions narrowly to preserve a federal court's role of reviewing constitutional claims.138 The Supreme Court has required Congress to provide a clear statement that it intends to preclude constitutional claims from judicial review.139 Review under the APA is also unavailable if the agency's action is committed to the agency's discretion.140 An agency's action is committed to its discretion when a statute's terms are so broad that there simply is "no law to apply" in evaluating its requirements.141 In other words, if "the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion," then judicial review is unavailable.142 The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that this exception to judicial review is "narrow" and only applied in rare circumstances.143 A prominent example of a matter usually committed to an agency's discretion is the decision not to initiate an enforcement action against a third party.144 The Court has explained that the decision to initiate an enforcement action involves a "complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [an agency's] expertise" and is "generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion."145 However, the Court characterized such decisions as presumptively unreviewable—"the presumption may be rebutted where the substantive statute [at issue] has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers."146 Similarly, the Court has held that an agency's decision to allocate funds from a lump-sum appropriation is committed to an agency's discretion, because the purpose of such an appropriation is to grant the agency flexibility to spend funds.147 Likewise, the Court has held that the decision by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discharge an employee for reasons in the "interests of the United States" is committed to agency discretion, a ruling based in part on the overall structure of the relevant statute directing the CIA to gather and protect intelligence sources.148 As discussed above, the APA contains a waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity under certain circumstances,149 providing a cause of action for individuals aggrieved by agency conduct to seek judicial review of an agency's decision.150 The APA directs reviewing courts to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" and to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that are (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; As a result, courts are generally authorized to direct an agency to comply with the law and can invalidate actions that are inconsistent with the agency's statutory authority.152 Courts may also review an agency's compliance with statutory procedural requirements, such as notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures imposed by other provisions of the APA.153 In addition, a court may examine an agency's discretionary decisions and invalidate actions that are arbitrary or capricious.154 When agencies exercise the authority delegated to them by Congress, they are limited to taking actions authorized by law.155 The Supreme Court has stated that "an agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it."156 Consequently, agencies may not exceed the statutory bounds of their authority.157 The APA authorizes courts to "set aside" agency action that is "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right" or otherwise "not in accordance with law."158 It directs courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" and to "interpret constitutional and statutory provisions."159 Courts, therefore, interpret the meaning of statutory provisions to determine whether an agency's actions accord with its statutory authority. In 2024, the Supreme Court held in Loper Bright v. Raimondo that courts should conduct this review de novo.160 That is, a court shall afford an agency's interpretation of the statute no deference when determining the meaning of an applicable statute.161 Since at least the 1940s, the Supreme Court has developed various judicial doctrines to address agency interpretations of federal law. In 1946, the Court's opinion in Skidmore v. Swift & Co.—which remains good law after the Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision—directed courts to give an agency's interpretation of a statute appropriate "weight" according to its "power to persuade" when determining the meaning of a statute. 162 Then, from 1984 to 2024, the Supreme Court's Chevron doctrine—overruled in the Loper Bright decision—required courts to defer to certain agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, so long as the agency's interpretation was reasonable.163 In the years following the Court's Chevron decision, the Court also articulated the major questions doctrine, requiring agencies to point to "clear congressional authorization" to regulate on issues of great "economic and political significance."164 This section of the report provides a brief overview of Chevron and Skidmore, the Supreme Court's controlling opinion in Loper Bright, and the Court's major questions doctrine. Prior to being overruled in 2024, Chevron established a two-step framework that courts applied when reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute it administered.165 Pursuant to that framework, courts first examined whether the meaning of a statute was clear.166 If so, "that [was] the end of the matter," and courts enforced the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."167 Where a statute contained an ambiguity or a gap, however, a court proceeded to the framework's second step. At "step two," courts examined whether an agency's interpretation of the ambiguous provision of the statute was reasonable.168 If the agency's interpretation was reasonable, the court was required to defer to the agency's interpretation, even if the court would have otherwise reached a contrary conclusion.169 The Chevron decision rested on several assumptions, including that statutory ambiguity indicated Congress's intent to delegate interpretive authority to agencies, that agencies may possess significant expertise concerning the law's administration, and that agencies are more politically accountable than courts and thus have superior claim to render policy decisions.170 Some commentators had noted that agency statutory interpretations were more likely to be upheld when the doctrine applied, particularly if a court reached Chevron's second step.171 Even when Chevron did not apply,172 a court could still accord an agency interpretation of a statute some respect or weight. Under the Court's pre-Chevron decision of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., an interpretation by the relevant agency "made in pursuance of official duty" and premised on "specialized experience" counts as a "body of experience and informed judgment" that courts can look to when determining a statute's meaning.173 Under Skidmore, courts can, but are not required to, give weight or respect to an agency interpretation to the extent the interpretation is persuasive.174 The Skidmore Court explained that the persuasiveness of an agency interpretation "will depend upon the thoroughness evident in [the agency's] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade," but not control.175 Unlike Chevron, as discussed below, Skidmore remains good law. The Court recognized the possibility that an agency's interpretation might be due weight or respect given the agency's "body of experience and informed judgment."181 Quoting its decision in Skidmore, the Court observed that such expertise has long been one of the factors which can give an agency's interpretation the "power to persuade," though not control.182 A "better presumption," the Court concluded, is thus that Congress expects that courts will do their "ordinary job" in determining the best reading of a statute, "with due respect for the views of the Executive Branch."183 The Supreme Court also acknowledged that sometimes the best reading of a statute is that Congress did delegate authority to an agency to exercise discretion when administering a statute.184 The Court provided examples of statutes in which Congress explicitly authorized an agency to define statutory terms185 or gave agencies broad discretionary authority to regulate when "appropriate" or "reasonable."186 The Court concluded that, in such circumstances, a court's role is to fix the permissible boundaries of the statutory delegation and to then ensure that the agency has acted reasonably.187 The Loper Bright decision means that courts will no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute.188 Instead, a court must "deploy[] its full interpretive toolkit"189 to determine and give legal effect to the best meaning of the law.190 The Court repeatedly cited and quoted from its prior Skidmore decision in explaining the proper role for courts when interpreting an ambiguous statute.191 These positive references suggest that, going forward, Skidmore may play a more prominent role in guiding lower courts' interpretations of ambiguous statutes where an agency with "specialized experience" has supplied its own interpretation.192 That said, the "due respect" that courts can afford interpretations of the executive branch under Skidmore does not mean that the agency's interpretation will receive controlling weight.193 The major questions doctrine mandates that an agency be able to show that it has clear congressional authorization to regulate in areas of great "economic and political significance."194 In applying the doctrine, the Court has cautioned that Congress does not authorize agencies to regulate on issues of significant societal import in vague or subtle terms195—as the Court opined in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Congress "does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes."196 As such, courts should "hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended" to confer such authority.197 Instead, the agency "must point to 'clear congressional authorization' for the power it claims."198 The Court has not articulated a specific test to determine whether a particular action constitutes a "major question" but has used the doctrine to analyze agency authority in myriad subject areas. For example, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Court invalidated the Department of Education's plan to cancel approximately $430 billion worth of student loans pursuant to authority granted by the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act).199 The Secretary of Education moved to cancel the loans pursuant to a provision allowing for the waiver or modification of the law's statutory and regulatory provisions during an emergency.200 The Court found that prior uses of the waiver authority were "extremely modest and narrow in scope"201 compared to the "staggering" action taken by the Secretary to cancel billions of dollars in loans.202 In holding that the agency did not have the statutory authority to implement the action, the Court stated "it is 'highly unlikely that Congress' authorized such a sweeping loan cancellation program 'through such a subtle devise as permission to "modify."'"203Courts will also examine an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.
Statutes of Limitations
A party challenging an agency action must file suit within the appropriate statute of limitations.68 Unless an agency's enabling legislation provides for a specific statutory deadline,69 the default six-year statute of limitations for bringing civil actions against the United States will apply.70 In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court clarified when the clock begins to run on that six-year limitation when challenging an agency action.71 Although numerous circuit courts for decades had held that the six-year statute of limitations began to run when the agency finalized its action,72 the Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins to run when the party bringing the challenge is injured by the agency action.73 The Court's decision turned on the language in the statute that states that a claim is "barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues."74 Holding that an action does not accrue until an injury occurs, the Court held that a facial challenge may be brought more than six years after the date an agency finalizes an action if the injury giving rise to the claim occurs after that date.75 For example, in Corner Post, the corporate plaintiff had not yet been incorporated when the agency finalized the regulation at issue in the case.76 Once incorporated, the entity raised a facial challenge against the agency's final rule in court, more than six years after the rule had been finalized.77 The Court allowed the suit to proceed because the corporate plaintiff's injury did not (and could not) occur until the corporation existed and was injured by the regulation.78 The Court's decision effectively extends, for some parties, the time period during which they can raise a facial challenge to an agency action.79
Ripeness and Mootness
Exhaustion of Remedies
Just as ambiguities arise in statutory provisions that agencies implement, similar uncertainties sometimes accompany agency regulations.157206 Supreme Court doctrine, reiterated in Auer v. Robbins, instructs courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless the agency's position is "plainly erroneous."158 Functionally, "Auer deference" to an agency's interpretation of a regulation seems to operate in a similar fashion as does Chevron deference.159 So long as the agency's interpretation of its regulation is reasonable,160 courts must give that interpretation "controlling weight."161 Importantly, Auer deference can extend to a broader scope of agency interpretations than does Chevron deference, including positions developed without formal procedures, such as statements made during the course of litigation.162 That said, Auer deference is not applicable to all agency interpretations of a regulation. For example, if an agency regulation simply "parrot[s]" or "paraphrase[s]" the relevant statutory language, then the agency possesses no special authority to interpret the regulation.163 Auer deference also does not apply "when the agency's interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."164 However, whether an inconsistent agency interpretation of its own regulation receives Auer deference appears to be unresolved.165
In recent years, a number of Justices signaled some disapproval of the doctrine and a willingness to reconsider the practice in an appropriate case.166 However, the only evidence of Auer's potential demise emerges primarily from concurring or dissenting opinions.167 Consequently, while some Justices certainly do wish to reconsider the doctrine, it is unclear whether a majority might be assembled in the future to cabin the scope of Auer deference or eliminate it altogether.168
In addition to statutory review of agency actions, another important basis for judicial review under the APA concerns an agency's factual determinations and certain discretionary decisions. Courts are authorized to "hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion."169 This "catch-all" provision of the APA applies to factual determinations made during "informal" proceedings,170 such as notice-and-comment rulemaking,171 and most other discretionary determinations an agency makes.172
The seminal Supreme Court decision elaborating this standard, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance Co., explains that the scope of this review is "narrow," as "a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency."173 However, courts will invalidate agency determinations that fail to "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'"174 When reviewing that determination, courts must "consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment."175 In general, the Court noted, an agency decision is arbitrary
207 and further developed in Kisor v. Wilkie, instructs courts to defer to certain reasonable interpretations of a genuinely ambiguous regulation—a practice commonly referred to as Auer deference.208 In Kisor, the Supreme Court cabined the scope of Auer deference,209 explaining that deference should not be "reflexive" and clarifying that courts are obligated "to perform their reviewing and restraining functions."210
For Auer deference to apply, a court first must determine that the regulation at issue is "genuinely ambiguous."211 In making this determination, a court must use all the available tools of construction to discern the regulation's meaning.212 If this endeavor reveals the meaning of the regulation, "the court must give it effect."213 If the court determines that the regulation is truly ambiguous, a court should only defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation.214 The Kisor Court further explained that not every reasonable agency interpretation is deserving of judicial deference.215 Certain kinds of interpretations, even if reasonable, should not be accorded controlling weight. To receive deference, the interpretation must represent the agency's authoritative or official position on the matter,216 "implicate the agency's substantive expertise,"217 and exhibit "fair and considered judgment."218 Thus, a court may decline to extend Auer deference if the agency's otherwise reasonable interpretation creates an "unfair surprise" to regulated parties,219 is inconsistent with prior agency interpretations,220 or emanates from a nonauthoritative source.221 Finally, if an agency regulation simply "parrot[s]" or "paraphrase[s]" the relevant statutory language, then the agency receives no special authority to interpret the regulation.222 Although the Supreme Court upheld the Auer deference doctrine in its 2019 Kisor decision, some commenters question whether the Supreme Court could overrule Auer after the Court's decision in Loper Bright.223 As discussed above, the Supreme Court recently overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, because it conflicted with APA's command that courts must "decide all relevant questions of law."224 It appears that Auer deference may conflict with the APA in a similar manner given the APA's direction that courts shall "determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action," which includes regulations.225 If the Court interprets the scope of courts' review of regulations under the APA as similar to that of statutes, then the Court might overrule Auer.226 176
235
Given the broad scope of federal agency actions that are subject to judicial review, whether an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious is largely a situation-specific question. Importantly, the Supreme Court has clarified that it is not arbitrary and capricious for agencies to change their policies. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Supreme Court held that review under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard is not heightened or more stringent simply because an agency's action alters its prior policy.177 An agency must acknowledge such change when it occurs, but so long as the agency's action is permissible under its authorizing statute and supported by good reasons, agencies are not required to show that new policies are better than old ones.178 In other words, an agency may be authorized to pursue a range of policy outcomes under its statutory authorization, and courts may not scrutinize such change more strictly than other agency decisions.179
In general, the
The arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires an agency to demonstrate that it engaged in reasoned decisionmaking when reaching its determination.180 Importantly, courts236 Courts "must judge the propriety of [an agency's] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency," and they may not create their own justifications to support an agency's decision beyond the reasons presented by the agency.181237 Further, courts require agencies to provide the "essential facts upon which the administrative decision was based"182238 and explain what justifies their determinations with actual evidence beyond a "conclusory statement."183239 An agency's failure to provide an adequate explanation for its decision will typically result in remand or invalidation of its decision.184 Among other things, this requirement plays an important role in judicial review of agency regulations. Thus, an agency's failure to explain its reasoning in response to significant comments raised during notice-and-comment rulemaking will be considered arbitrary and capricious.185
240
Similarly, a court may find an agency to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously when the agency fails to provide an adequate response to significant comments raised during notice-and-comment rulemaking.241 For example, in its 2024 Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision, which stayed implementation of an EPA Clean Air Act rule pending appeal, the Supreme Court held that the EPA would likely lose on the merits because it likely acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to adequately respond to a particular public comment when it implemented its final rule.242186243 For example, courts will invalidate agency actions that are the product of "illogical"187244 or inconsistent reasoning.188245 In addition, courts will find an agency action to be arbitrary and capricious if the agency simply failed to consider an important factor relevant to its action,246 such as the policy effects of its decision189247 or vital aspects of the problem in the issue before it.190248 Likewise, courts may invalidate or remand a determination to the agency if the agency decision failed to consider regulatory alternatives that would similarly serve the agency's goals191249 or provide "less restrictive, yet easily administered" options.192250 It bears mention that courts are sometimes particularly deferential to agencies' expertise when making predictive judgments based on scientific or technical determinations.193
251
Because of the wide range of statutory authorities and agency missions, what counts as a relevant factor that must be considered by an agency when reaching a decision can be context specific. An illustrative case is JudalongJudulang v. Holder, where the Supreme Court found the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) policy for deciding whether resident aliens may apply for relief from removal to be arbitrary and capricious.194252 The Court noted that the relevant factors for the BIA to consider were the "purposes of the immigration laws or the appropriate operation of the immigration system."195253 Because the agencyBIA failed to root its determination in consideration of such factors and instead based its policy on an "irrelevant comparison between statutory provisions" unconnected to the merits of a removal decision or the administration of immigration laws, the Court held that the agency's determination was arbitrary and capricious.196
Other examples197 of agency actions found to be arbitrary and capricious include
In addition to authorizing judicial review of agency actions, the APA also imposes various procedural requirements that agencies must follow depending on the type of agency action. The APA makes two important distinctions in categorizing the actions of an agency. First, it distinguishes between rulemaking—the agency's process for promulgating and repealing a rule208—and adjudications—the agency's "process for the formulation of an order."209 A rule applies generally to a group of individuals or the public, while an adjudication is an individualized decision.210 Second, the APA distinguishes between formal and informal proceedings.211 Formal proceedings are subject to more stringent procedures than informal proceedings and are required when the agency's decision must be made "on the record."212 According to the APA, every agency action falls into these categories, resulting in four types of agency decisions. First, although such instances are rare, an agency may conduct a "formal rulemaking," in which it provides a formal, public hearing before promulgating a regulation.213 Second, and much more commonly, an agency may engage in informal rulemaking, in which it offers the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.214 Third, an agency may conduct a "formal adjudication" in which it provides a trial-type hearing for a particular individual before an administrative law judge.215 Finally, an agency may make a decision subject to the "informal adjudication" procedures of the APA. Agencies enjoy substantial discretion under this standard to formulate their own procedures, subject to the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.216 These categories of agency actions are shown in Table 1.
|
Agency Action |
Characteristics |
Example |
|
Formal Rulemaking |
Rulemaking proceeding with a formal hearing that permits parties to conduct cross-examination. The decisionmaker is barred from ex parte contacts, and the agency's decision must be supported by substantial evidence. |
The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires regulations made by the Secretary of Commerce concerning marine mammals be made on the record. 16 U.S.C. §1373(d). |
|
Informal Rulemaking |
Agency must give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking. |
After notice and comment period, Department of Labor promulgates a regulation requiring certain firms to pay workers overtime wages. |
|
Formal Adjudication |
Individualized decision with a formal hearing that permits parties to conduct cross-examination. The decisionmaker is barred from ex parte contacts, and the agency's decision must be supported by substantial evidence. |
After denying an individual benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, agency provides an administrative law judge to oversee a formal hearing reviewing the case. |
|
Informal Adjudication |
No hearing requirement; parties compelled to appear are entitled to counsel; agencies are generally free to formulate their own proceedings subject to requirements of the Due Process Clause. |
The Environmental Protection Agency orders a waste facility to correct its practices. |
Source: Created by CRS.
Importantly, agency actions can be challenged for failing to comply with "procedure[s] required by law."217 Consequently, assuming that a court is otherwise authorized to adjudicate a case,218 individuals aggrieved by agency conduct may challenge an agency's failure to comply with the procedures mandated by the APA or another statute.
For example, before engaging in "informal" rulemaking under Section 553 of the APA, agencies must provide the public with advance notice and an opportunity to meaningfully comment on the proposed rule.219 Such regulations are often referred to as "legislative rules."220 However, "nonlegislative" rules, such as interpretive rules and policy statements, are exempt from this requirement.221 Federal courts will thus remand or invalidate an agency document issued without notice-and-comment procedures if a court concludes that it qualifies as a legislative rule.222 Courts doing so will sometimes review the issue de novo, refusing to grant any deference to the agency because Congress has not granted the agency authority to administer the APA.223 In addition, the APA's "good cause" provision permits agencies to bypass these requirements if compliance would be "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest."224 For example, in 2004, the D.C. Circuit upheld on security grounds the Federal Aviation Administration's rule, promulgated without notice and comment, covering the suspension and revocation of pilot certificates.225 The court accepted the agency's contention that the regulation was necessary to protect the public against security threats, ruling that the "legitimate concern over the threat of further terrorist acts involving aircraft in the aftermath of September 11, 2001," supported the good cause finding.226 Nonetheless, the appropriate standard of review for determining what constitutes "good cause" under the APA is unsettled.227
Similarly, parties may challenge the procedures used in agency adjudications. When conducting "formal" or "on the record" adjudications, agencies must provide trial-type procedures during the hearing before the agency.228 While agencies are generally free to choose between utilizing rulemaking or adjudications to set policy,229 certain legal requirements nevertheless apply to adjudications.230 Formal adjudications require trial-like procedures and must be conducted before an administrative law judge (ALJ) or agency head; informal adjudications have fewer procedural requirements and need not take place before an ALJ.231 An agency's choice to adjudicate an issue with informal procedures rather than formal ones may be challenged as violating the APA.232
Importantly, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that courts may not add to the procedural requirements imposed on agencies in the APA.233 Agencies enjoy discretion to develop and apply their own procedures that supplement the APA's requirements, but courts lack authority to impose additional requirements upon agencies.234 In the past, lower federal courts had required agencies to adopt additional procedures not spelled out in the text of the APA.235 In the context of informal rulemaking, the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. ruled that courts may not require agencies to utilize additional procedures beyond those mandated by the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.236 Likewise, the Court's 2015 decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association held that courts may not require agencies to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking if the APA exempts the agency action from those requirements.237 In other words, the APA "sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness."238
Agencies, of course, often change prior policies in response to changing circumstances or administrative preferences. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Supreme Court held that review under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard is not heightened or more stringent simply because an agency's action alters its prior policy.255 An agency must set forth a "reasoned explanation" for changing course,256 but if the agency's action is permissible under its authorizing statute and reasonably supported, then the agency need not show that new policies are better than old ones.257 In other words, an agency may be authorized to pursue a range of policy outcomes under its governing statutes, and courts may not scrutinize an agency's shift in policy more strictly than other agency decisions.258 The APA also provides for judicial review to ensure compliance with procedures required by law.259 Consequently, assuming that a court is otherwise authorized to adjudicate a case,260 individuals aggrieved by agency conduct may challenge an agency's failure to comply with required procedures established in the APA, agency regulations, or another applicable statute.261 Although courts may invalidate an agency action if the agency fails to comply with mandated procedures, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that courts may not add to the procedural requirements imposed on agencies.262 For example, prior to the Court's 2015 decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, certain lower courts had imposed a requirement that agencies undergo notice-and-comment procedures to change an interpretive rule under certain circumstances.263 The APA, however, exempts interpretive rules from these procedures.264 The Court held that the lower court's "doctrine is contrary to the clear text of the APA's rulemaking provisions, and it improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the 'maximum procedural requirements' specified in the APA." The Court emphasized that the APA "sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness."265 The APA itself imposes various procedural requirements on agencies when they take particular actions.266 Many procedural challenges arising under the APA center around an agency's compliance with the APA's informal rulemaking requirements for promulgating legislative rules.267 In brief, those requirements require an agency to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide "interested persons" an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.268 After consideration of the comments, if the agency elects to issue the rule, the agency must publish the final rule in the Federal Register along with a "concise general statement" of the rule's "basis and purpose."269 The notice must "'fairly apprise interested persons' of the nature of the rulemaking."270 Similarly, the logical outgrowth test provides that the final rule cannot differ so greatly from the proposed rule that regulated parties, caught by surprise, are denied an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the rulemaking.271 Courts will also set aside a rule if an agency fails to provide a comment period for a legislative rule.272 However, an agency may forgo the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA if it has good cause to find that the procedures would be "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest."273The Constitution confers Congress with254
The circumstances in which federal courts will review the actions of agencies are thus informed by complicated statutory, constitutional, and prudential considerations. Perhaps the most prominent of such statutes, the APA, subjects a broad scope of agency decisions to judicial review, subject to important limitationsOne of the most prominent statutory bases of judicial review of agency action is the Administrative Procedure Act. Judicial interpretation of the APA's provisions consequently plays a central role in determining what types of agency actions are subject to review in federal court. These developments are, nonetheless, subject to future modification by Congress, which enjoys authority to alter the APA or any other statute to shape the contours of judicial review of agency action.
Author Contact Information
| 1. |
The Constitution creates the offices of the President and Vice President, U.S. Const. art. II, §1, the Congress, id. art. I, §1, and the Supreme Court, id. art. III, §1. Congress is authorized "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the authority bestowed on these entities. id. art. I, §8, cl. 18. Pursuant to this power, Congress has established federal offices and agencies within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. See CRS Report R43562, Administrative Law Primer: Statutory Definitions of "Agency" and Characteristics of Agency Independence, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. |
See CRS Report RL32240, The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. |
See CRS Report R44468, General Policy Statements: Legal Overview, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. |
Although Congress's authority to create federal agencies is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, its power to do so is well established. See, e.g., Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 499 (2010) ("No one doubts Congress's power to create a vast and varied federal bureaucracy."). See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 501(a) ("The Secretary [of the Department of Veterans Affairs] has authority to prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the Department . . . ."). For a discussion on agency rulemaking, see CRS In Focus IF10003, An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process, by Maeve P. Carey (2021). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See 5 U.S.C. §558 (imposing certain requirements on agencies when reviewing applications for a license). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7. |
See U.S. Const. art. III, §1 ("The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."); id. art. I, §8, cl. 9 (authorizing Congress "[t]o constitute Tribunals inferior to the [S]upreme Court"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8. |
Id. art. III, §2, cl. 1. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9. |
See Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, 73; 28 U.S.C. §41 (establishing circuit courts); id. ch. 5 (establishing district courts); id. §1331 (providing district courts with "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."); id. §1332 (providing district courts with "original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 ... and is between" diverse parties). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10. |
See infra "Requirements for Judicial Review." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11. |
See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 836 (authorizing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue license for construction of a power project). See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 706. Id. §§ 701–706. For a further discussion of judicial review under the APA, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10558, Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by Jonathan M. Gaffney (2024). See Gary Lawson, Federal Administrative Law 202 (2009). See generally Kathryn E. Kovacs, Superstatute Theory and Administrative Common Law, 90 Ind. L.J. 1207 (2015) ("The APA has taken on quasi-constitutional status."). 5 U.S.C. §§ 553–558 Id. §§ 701–706. Id. § 706. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12. |
5 U.S.C. §§551 et seq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13. |
Gary Lawson, Federal Administrative Law 202 (2009). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14. |
Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (describing the scope of judicial review permitted by the agency's "organic statute"); see generally Kathryn E. Kovacs, Superstatute Theory and Administrative Common Law, 90 Ind. L.J. 1207 (2015) ("The APA has taken on quasi-constitutional status."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15. |
Id.; U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. See Cong. Rsch. Serv., Overview of Cases or Controversies, Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-1/ALDE_00013375/ (last visited Sept. 11, 2025). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See infra "The Scope of Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See infra "Review of an Agency's Interpretation of Statutory Authority."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18. | See infra "Arbitrary-and-Capricious Review"
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21. | See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997) ("In addition to the immutable requirements of Article III, 'the federal judiciary has also adhered to a set of prudential principles that bear on the question of standing.'") (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); In re Madison Guar. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 173 F.3d 866, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1999). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25. | –13 (2007) ("Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider."). For a discussion on federal court jurisdiction, see CRS Report R47641, Federal and State Courts: Structure and Interaction, by Joanna R. Lampe and Laura Deal (2023).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28. | , e.g., United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29. | ; Cotton, 535 U.S. at 630; Ruhrgas AG, 526 U.S. at 583.
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977) ("[T]he APA does not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action."). 28 U.S.C. § 1331. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30. |
See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §2342. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31. |
See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §4915 (establishing exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit for review of certain rules and regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32. |
Id. §1331. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33. | Nonstatutory review of federal agency action is available when an agency action is ultra vires, Larson v. Domestic & Foreign | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34. | 28 U.S.C. § 2342. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146, 159 (2025), the Supreme Court held that, although the Hobbs Act provides for exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for pre-enforcement review of the validity of certain agency orders in the federal courts of appeals, the Act does not preclude a district court from determining the validity of an agency order in an enforcement proceeding. ("When Congress wants to bar a district court in an enforcement proceeding from reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute, Congress can and must say so."). See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 4915 (establishing exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit for review of certain rules and regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37. | ("A waiver of the Federal Government's sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text . . . and will not be implied." (citations omitted)).
5 U.S.C. § 702. Id.; Veluchamy v. FDIC, 706 F.3d 810, 812 (7th Cir. 2013) ("But this request for substitute monetary relief constitutes a request for "money damages," which the APA does not authorize."). 28 U.S.C. § 2679; see CRS Report R45732, The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview, by Michael D. Contino and Andreas Kuersten (2023). 28 U.S.C. § 2679. Id. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38. |
5 U.S.C. §702. Importantly, this waiver may apply to a wider range of lawsuits than are directly authorized by the APA's cause of action, such as "nonstatutory" and constitutional claims. See Trudeau, 456 F.3d at 187; Puerto Rico, 490 F.3d at 57–58 ; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 1989) ("On its face, the 1976 amendment is an unqualified waiver of sovereign immunity in actions seeking nonmonetary relief against legal wrongs for which governmental agencies are accountable."); Hostetter v. United States, 739 F.2d 983, 985 (4th Cir.1984); Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 719 (3d Cir.1979); but see In re Secs. & Exch. Comm'n ex rel. Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that "the federal government, in enacting the APA, waived its immunity with respect to those 'action[s] in a court of the United States' which seek review of 'agency action'"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39. |
5 U.S.C. §702. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40. |
28 U.S.C. §2679. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 41. |
Id. §2679. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 42. |
Id. §§1346(b), 2671-80. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 44. |
Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 456 F.3d 178, 188-191 (D.C. Cir. 2006). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 45. | (quoting New Mexico v. Regan, 745 F.2d 1318, 1322 (10th Cir. 1984)).
Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 188–191 (D.C. Cir. 2006). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46. | –6 (Michael Herz et al. eds., 2d ed. 2015).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 U.S.C. § 704. An agency action is defined as "the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act." Id. § 551(13).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 48. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 U.S.C. § 1361 (authorizing mandamus relief against government officials and agencies but not the United States). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Id. § 1651(a).
51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52. | .
Id. § 1361. Federal courts may also issue declaratory relief—a legal judgement stating the rights and obligation of relevant parties—under the Declaratory Judgement Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 53. | . Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Barnhart v. Devine, 771 F.2d 1515, 1524 (D.C. Cir. 1985). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Nevertheless, even if a cause of action is available under Bivens, two important affirmative defenses may bar federal officers from being sued. The Supreme Court has recognized that absolute civil immunity is owed to judges, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007) ("Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to 'Cases' and 'Controversies.'"). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 58. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See generally Erwin Chemerinsky, What's Standing After Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, 96 NYU L. Rev. Online 269, 272–73 (2021) ("Perhaps the most important of these [Article III] restrictions is standing to sue, which focuses on whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication."); | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 60. |
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 61. | Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) ("The [standing] doctrine developed in our case law to ensure that federal courts do not exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood."); Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) ("The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches."). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473–474 (1982). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 62. | Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 760 (1984). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 63. | Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 64. |
Lujan v. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 65. |
Id. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 66. | See Allen, 468 U.S. at 752, 757–58 (holding that plaintiff lacked standing because the "line of causation between" the IRS's action of granting tax exemptions to some racially discriminatory schools and the plaintiff's asserted injury of being unable to attend a racially integrated school was "attenuated at best"). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 67. | See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 68. |
See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. §1276(a)(1) (requiring petitions for review of certain Environmental Protection Agency actions to be filed within 60 days). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 69. |
28 U.S.C. §2401. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 70. |
But see Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2347 (2014) (indicating that ripeness was ultimately a question of standing, particularly after the Court's decision in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 71. |
Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 72. |
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 73. |
Id. at 149. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 74. |
Ohio Forestry Ass'n., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 75. |
Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152-53. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 76. |
Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 164 (1967) (denying review of an agency regulation until it was applied in a particular circumstance, in part, because the plaintiff's primary conduct was not affected); Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 58 (1993) (holding that a challenge to agency regulations was not ripe because the rule "impose[d] no penalties for violating any newly imposed restriction, but limit[ed] access to a benefit created by the Reform Act but not automatically bestowed on eligible aliens"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 77. |
Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 812 (2003) (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 82 (1978)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 78. | Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 896 F.3d 425, 436–37 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (dismissing claim for failing to file suit within required timeframe and noting that "[f]iling deadlines, replete throughout the United States Code, promote prompt and final judicial review of agency decisions and ensure that agencies and affected parties can proceed free from the uncertainty that an action may be undone at any time"). For a discussion on the variety of statutes of limitations found in the U.S. Code, see Jonathan R. Siegel, Administrative Conference of the United States, The ACUS Sourcebook of Federal Judicial Review Statutes 42–51 (2022). 28 U.S.C. § 2401. Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 603 U.S. 799, 811 (2024). See, e.g., Trafalgar Cap. Assocs., Inc. v. Cuomo, 159 F. 3d 21, 34–37 (1st Cir. 1998); Wind River Min. Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710, 715 (9th Cir. 1991); but see Herr v. U.S. Forest Serv., 803 F.3d 809, 821 (6th Cir. 2015). Corner Post, 603 U.S. at 811 ("[A] claim does not 'accrue' as soon as the defendant acts, but only after the plaintiff suffers the injury required to press her claim in court."); see also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11197, Corner Post and the Statute of Limitations for Administrative Procedure Act Claims, by Benjamin M. Barczewski and Jonathan M. Gaffney (2024). 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (emphasis added). Corner Post, 603 U.S. at 825. Both before and after Corner Post, a party could raise an as-applied challenge (such as when an agency enforces a rule against the party), as opposed to a facial challenge, to the validity of an agency action even if more than six years had passed after the agency finalized the action. See id. at 823 ("Regulated parties 'may always assail a regulation as exceeding the agency's statutory authority in enforcement proceedings against them.'" (quoting Herr, 803 F.3d at 821)). Id. at 806. Id. Id. at 825. Id. at 823–24. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1) (requiring petitions for review of certain EPA actions to be filed within sixty days). Compare 12 U.S.C. § 4623(a)(1) (requiring judicial challenge to be filed "within 10 days after receiving written notice of the Director's action"), with 42 U.S.C. § 6976(a)(1) ("[A] petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating any regulation . . . shall be filed within ninety days from the date of such promulgation . . . ."). Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (providing that a claim is "barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues") (emphasis added), with 15 U.S.C. § 2060(2) ("Not later than 60 days after the promulgation . . . of a rule or standard to which this subsection applies, any person adversely affected by such rule or standard may file a petition . . . for judicial review of such rule.") (emphasis added). See, e.g., Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 670 n.2 (2010) ("Ripeness reflects constitutional considerations that implicate 'Article III limitations on judicial power,' as well as 'prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction.'" (quoting Reno v. Cath. Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57 n.18 (1993))); Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)). Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 148–49. Id. at 149. Ohio Forestry Ass'n., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998). Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152–53. Reno v. Cath. Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 58 (1993) (holding that a challenge to agency regulations was not ripe because the rule "impose[d] no penalties for violating any newly imposed restriction, but limit[ed] access to a benefit created by the Reform Act but not automatically bestowed on eligible aliens"); Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 164 (1967) (denying review of an agency regulation until it was applied in a particular circumstance, in part, because the plaintiff's primary conduct was not affected). Nat'l Park Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 812 (2003) (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env't Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 82 (1978)). Id. (holding that legal challenge to an agency policy statement explaining the agency's views on the Contract Dispute Act was not ripe because additional factual development on how the agency would apply the law to particular contracts would advance the Court's ability to consider the legal issues presented); Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union v. Vought, No. 25-5091, 2025 WL 2371608, at *14 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2025) (holding challenge to agency head's alleged decision to "shutdown" an agency was unripe for review because "the exact scope of the putative shutdown" was unclear and the court's review would benefit from further factual development) (quoting Toilet Goods Ass'n, 387 U.S. at 164). See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000) (The Constitution's case-or-controversy limitation on federal judicial authority . . . underpins . . . our mootness jurisprudence.). For further discussion of the mootness doctrine, see Cong. Rsch. Serv., Overview of Mootness Doctrine, Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-8-1/ALDE_00000722/ (last visited Sept. 11, 2025). Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 168 (2016) (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90–91 (2013)). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Liner v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 319 (1974) (holding that a challenge to a law school's admission standards was moot because the student has already been admitted, was entering his final term, and would remain in school regardless of the resolution of the case). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 81. |
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992). This doctrine often derives from prudential considerations but is also sometimes required by statute. See generally Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247-48 (D.C. Cir. 2004). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 82. |
Avocados Plus, 370 F.3d at 1247; Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec'y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 76 (1st Cir. 1997) ("We agree with the district court that [the plaintiff] impermissibly failed to exhaust her administrative remedies."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 83. |
Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1993). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 84. |
See supra "Sovereign Immunity." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 85. |
See supra "Cause of Action." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 86. |
See infra note 213. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 87. |
5 U.S.C. §706. 5 U.S.C. §553(e) also provides interested parties the right to petition a government agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. This provision requires agencies that deny such a petition to provide a brief statement of their reasons for that decision. An agency's denial is judicially reviewable, see Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527 (2007), but the scope of that review "is 'extremely limited' and 'highly deferential.'" Id. (quoting Nat'l Customs Brokers & Forwarders Assn. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 883 F.2d 93, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 88. |
5 U.S.C. §553. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 89. |
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. of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of the Fed. Res. Sys., 745 F.2d 677, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See infra note 172. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 90. |
Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 91. |
5 U.S.C. §551(1). See generally CRS Report R43562, Administrative Law Primer: Statutory Definitions of "Agency" and Characteristics of Agency Independence, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 92. |
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 93. |
5 U.S.C. §551(1). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 94. |
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992). However, the Court ruled that the President is still subject to constitutional claims arising outside of the APA. Id. (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 95. |
Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Sierra Club v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 895, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1978)); see also Swann v. Walters, 620 F. Supp. 741 (D.D.C. 1984); United States v. Wall, 670 F.2d 469 (4th Cir. 1982). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 96. |
5 U.S.C. §551(13). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 97. |
Id. §551(4) (defining a "rule" for purposes of the APA); id. §551(8) (defining "license") id. §551(10) (defining "sanction"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 98. |
See, e.g., Hearst Radio v. FCC, 167 F.2d 225, 227 (D.C. Cir. 1948) ("Broad as is the judicial review provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, it covers only those activities included within the statutory definition of 'agency action.'"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 99. |
See, e.g., Indus. Safety Equip. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 837 F.2d 1115, 1118-19 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 456 F.3d 178, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that "we have never found a press release of the kind at issue here to constitute 'final agency action' under the APA"). See also Barry v. SEC, No. 10-cv-4071, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30547, *19 (E.D.N.Y. March 7, 2012) ("The press release is therefore not 'final' action subject to review under the APA."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 100. |
5 U.S.C. §704. Some courts have wrapped this requirement into the ripeness inquiry, concluding that a claim is not ripe if it does involve final agency action. See, e.g., Los Alamos Study Grp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 692 F.3d 1057, 1065 (10th Cir. 2012); Dietary Supplemental Coal., Inc. v. Sullivan, 978 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1992). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 101. | Already, LLC, 568 U.S. at 91. See id. (explaining that, in the absence of the voluntary cessation doctrine, "a defendant could engage in unlawful conduct, stop when sued to have the case declared moot, then pick up where he left off, repeating this cycle until he achieves all his unlawful ends"). Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449, 457 n.1 (2017) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Wheeler, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2019) ("This Court and other Circuits have previously and 'consistently recognized that where the defendant is a government actor — and not a private litigant — there is less concern about the recurrence of objectionable behavior.'" (quoting Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. SEC, 858 F. Supp. 2d 51, 61–62 (D.D.C. 2012))); see also People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 918 F.3d 151, 157 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("In analyses of 'voluntary cessation,' many of our sister circuits have been ready to give declarations by (or on behalf of) government officials––public servants sworn to uphold the law––somewhat higher credence than statements made by private parties."); Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1117 n.15 (10th Cir. 2010) ("Indeed, despite Laidlaw's heavy burden, some courts have expressly treated governmental officials' voluntary conduct 'with more solicitude' than that of private actors." (quoting Ragsdale v. Turnock, 841 F.2d 1358, 1365 (7th Cir. 1988))). See, e.g., Lewis v. Becerra, No. CV 18-2929 (RBW), 2023 WL 3884595, at *12 (D.D.C. June 8, 2023) (dismissing challenge as moot after agency rescinded and replaced challenged agency rulings); Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash., 352 F. Supp. 3d at 14 (holding voluntary cessation doctrine does not apply when agency "has taken the affirmative step of revising its records-management policy" and it "would have to decide to promulgate a new policy" to resume the challenged conduct). See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 720 (2022) ("Here the Government 'nowhere suggests that if this litigation is resolved in its favor it will not' reimpose emissions limits predicated on generation shifting; indeed, it 'vigorously defends' the legality of such an approach [and w]e do not dismiss a case as moot in such circumstances." (quoting Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 719 (2007))); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 918 F.3d at 158 ("[The USDA letter] doesn't express the agency's position clearly enough to convince us that, as to all requested document types, it is 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'" (quoting Ladlaw, 528 U.S. at 189)). McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992). This doctrine often derives from prudential considerations but is also sometimes required by statute. See Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247–48 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Avocados Plus, 370 F.3d at 1247; Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec'y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 76 (1st Cir. 1997) ("We agree with the district court that [the plaintiff] impermissibly failed to exhaust her administrative remedies."). Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 146–47 (1993); DSE, Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21, 26–27 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("Under the APA, a party can seek judicial review from a final agency action without pursuing an intra-agency appeal unless required to do so by statute or by regulation."). See, e.g., Conservation Force v. Salazar, 919 F. Supp. 2d 85, 90 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing claim because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies required by agency regulations); Career Educ., Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 6 F.3d 817, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (requiring exhaustion pursuant to agency regulation "in order to give the Department's top level of appeal an opportunity to place an official imprimatur on the Department's interpretation of its regulations before it is reviewed by a federal court"). Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175, 195–96 (2023). Id. at 182, 195–96. Id. See Siegel, supra note 69, at 14 ("Litigants and courts rely on [the APA's] general judicial review provisions thousands of times every year."). Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Fam. Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967); see also McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146, 155 (2025) ("[T]his Court has long recognized a 'basic presumption of judicial review' of agency action." (quoting Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 586 U.S. 9, 22 (2018). 5 U.S.C. § 704. Id. §§ 701, 704; Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984). 5 U.S.C. § 704. Id. § 551(1). Id. This exemption would appear to apply to not only Congress and the courts directly but also agencies within the legislative and judicial branches. See, e.g., Ethnic Emps. of Libr. of Cong. v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1416 n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("[T]he Library [of Congress] is not an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act."); Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, 17 F.3d 1446, 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("Over the years, virtually every case interpreting the APA exemption for 'the courts of the United States' has held that the exemption applies to the entire judicial branch."). 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992) (citing the "respect for the separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President" and holding that the APA's "textual silence" concerning whether the law applies to the President was "not enough to subject the President to the provisions of the APA"). However, the Court ruled that the President is still subject to constitutional claims arising outside of the APA. Id. (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure), 343 U.S. 579 (1952)). 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). Id. § 551(4) (defining a "rule" for purposes of the APA), (8) (defining "license"), (10) (defining "sanction"). See, e.g., Nat'l Veterans Legal Servs. Program v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 990 F.3d 834, 839 (4th Cir. 2021) ("When authorizing review of 'agency action,' the APA 'does not provide judicial review for everything done by an administrative agency.'" (quoting Hearst Radio v. FCC, 167 F.2d 225, 227 (D.C. Cir. 1948))); Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Tex. v. United States, 757 F.3d 484, 490 (5th Cir. 2014) ("Because the Tribe fails to point to any identifiable 'agency action' within the meaning of § 702 for both claims, we hold that the Tribe has failed to prove that subject-matter jurisdiction exists for this lawsuit."); Hearst Radio, 167 F.2d at 227 ("Broad as is the judicial review provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, it covers only those activities included within the statutory definition of 'agency action.'"). See, e.g., Walmart Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 21 F.4th 300, 309 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that agency negotiating positions did not constitute agency action and barring suit for failure to "identify agency action"); Indus. Safety Equip. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 837 F.2d 1115, 1118–19 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that "we have never found a press release of the kind at issue here to constitute 'final agency action' under the APA"). See also Barry v. SEC, No. 10-CV-4071, 2012 WL 760456, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2012) (reviewing the definition of "agency action" under the APA and determining that the definition "does not appear to embrace the press release" in question). Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 891–93 (1990) (holding that it is "certain that the flaws in the entire 'program'—consisting principally of the many individual actions referenced in the complaint, and presumably actions yet to be taken as well—cannot be laid before the courts for wholesale correction under the APA"). The Supreme Court stated that the political branches were the appropriate venue for seeking broad programmatic change. Id. See, e.g. City of New York v. Dep't of Def., 913 F.3d 423, 432 (4th Cir. 2019) (providing that the APA limits review to "only those acts that are specific enough to avoid entangling the judiciary in programmatic oversight, clear enough to avoid substituting judicial judgments for those of the executive branch, and substantial enough to prevent an incursion into internal agency management"); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 460 F.3d 13, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holding agency strategy established in agency budget request is not agency action under APA because it is a "broad 'programmatic' statement that Lujan keeps from our review" (citing Lujan, 497 U.S. at 891)). 5 U.S.C. § 704. Some courts have wrapped this requirement into the ripeness inquiry, concluding that a claim is not ripe if it does involve final agency action. See, e.g., Los Alamos Study Grp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 692 F.3d 1057, 1065 (10th Cir. 2012); Dietary Supplemental Coal., Inc. v. Sullivan, 978 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1992). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 102. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 103. |
Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462, 469-70 (1994); Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 798(1992). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 104. | The Supreme Court considers the effect that the action has on parties and has stated that it takes a "'pragmatic' approach . . . to finality" determinations. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. at 599. For example, the Court held that an agency's issuance of a jurisdictional determination had legal consequences for the plaintiff even though no action could be brought against plaintiff for failing to conform to the determination itself. Id. The Supreme Court held the action had legal consequences because the determination was binding on the government and its issuance had the effect of providing or denying plaintiffs with a five-year safe harbor from enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act. Id.
Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462, 469–70 (1994); Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 798 (1992). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 105. |
See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 152-53 (1967). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 106. |
Id. at 140. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 107. |
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 365 (1974) (reviewing a statute, 38 U.S.C. s 211(a), which expressly barred judicial review of decisions of the Administrator of the Veterans Administration). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 108. |
See, e.g., Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 109. |
Id. at 345. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 110. | 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). Id. § 701(a)(1). Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Fam. Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967)); see also McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146, 155 (2025) ("[T]his Court has long recognized a 'basic presumption of judicial review' of agency action." (quoting Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 586 U.S. 9, 22 (2018))). Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 141 (quoting Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 379–80 (1962)). See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 805 (barring judicial review of any "determination, finding, action, or omission under" the Congressional Review Act). Most courts have concluded this provision to preclude judicial review of questions such as whether an agency should have submitted an action to Congress pursuant to the CRA. See, e.g., Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 568 F.3d 225, 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009). For a survey of judicial review bars appearing in the U.S. Code, see Laura E. Dolbow, Barring Judicial Review, 77 Vand. L. Rev. 307, 323 (2024). See, e.g., Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984). Id. at 345. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 111. | the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 10–12 (2012).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 112. |
5 U.S.C. §701. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 113. |
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1971). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 114. |
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 115. |
See CRS Report R43708, The Take Care Clause and Executive Discretion in the Enforcement of Law, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 116. |
Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831–32; see also Cass Sunstein, Reviewing Agency Inaction After Heckler v. Chaney, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 653, 675–83 (1985). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 117. |
Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 118. | ; see also Daniel Epps & Ganesh Sitaraman, How to Save the Supreme Court, 129 Yale L.J. 148, 178 (2019) ("[T]he constitutionality of jurisdiction-stripping proposals remains one of the most significant unanswered questions in the field of federal courts.").
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109 (1977) ("Thus those cases merely adhered to the well-established principle that when constitutional questions are in issue, the availability of judicial review is presumed, and we will not read a statutory scheme to take the 'extraordinary' step of foreclosing jurisdiction unless Congress' intent to do so is manifested by 'clear and convincing' evidence." (quoting Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762 (1975)). 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1971). Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985). See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 16 (2020); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 586 U.S. 9, 23 (2018). Id. Id. at 831–32; see Cass Sunstein, Reviewing Agency Inaction After Heckler v. Chaney, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 653, 675–83 (1985). Heckler, 470 U.S. at 833. The Court also provided that if an agency adopted a non-enforcement policy "so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities," the presumption of nonreviewability could also be overcome. Id. Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993). See supra "Sovereign Immunity." See supra "Cause of Action." 5 U.S.C. § 706. A separate provision, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), provides interested parties the right to petition a government agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. This provision requires agencies that deny such a petition to provide a brief statement of their reasons for that decision. An agency's denial is judicially reviewable, see Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527 (2007), but the scope of that review "is 'extremely limited' and 'highly deferential,'" id. (quoting Nat'l Customs Brokers & Forwarders Assn. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 883 F.2d 93, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). Id. § 706(2)(D). Id. § 706(A). 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. of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of the Fed. Res. Sys., 745 F.2d 677, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see discussion infra note 231. Id. See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 723 (2022) ("Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress, and 'enabling legislation' is generally not an 'open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line.'" (quoting Ernest Gellhorn & Paul Verkuil, Controlling Chevron-Based Delegations, 20 Cardozo L. Rev. 989, 1011 (1999))). 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). Id. § 706. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412–13 (2024). Id. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 721 (2022); Nat'l Fed'n of Ind. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (per curiam); King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 485–86 (2015); Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43 (1984). Id. at 842. Id. at 842–43. Id. Id. at 843. Id. at 843–44, 864–66. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 119. |
5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), (C). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 120. |
See, e.g., Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120 (1994) (invalidating a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation for violating the clear meaning of a statute). Closely related to this inquiry is an agency's compliance with procedural requirements contained in the APA or another statute. See infra "Review of Compliance with Procedural Requirements." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 121. |
467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984); but see Matthew C. Stephenson & Adrian Vermeule, Chevron Has Only One Step, 95 Va. L. Rev. 597, 598 (2009) (arguing that Chevron's two steps ultimately merge into a single reasonableness inquiry). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 122. |
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 123. |
Id. at 842-43. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 124. |
Id. at 843. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 125. |
Id. at 843-44. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 126. |
Id. at 865. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 127. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 128. |
See generally FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 514 (2009) (holding that, when agency actions fall within the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard, courts should not apply "more searching review" simply because an agency changed course). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 129. |
Nat'l Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005) ("Only a judicial precedent holding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the agency's interpretation, and therefore contains no gap for the agency to fill, displaces a conflicting agency construction."). 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, 132 S. Ct. 476, 483 n.7 (2011); see also Arent v. Shalala, 70 F.3d 610, 616 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("The Chevron analysis and the 'arbitrary, capricious' inquiry set forth in State Farm overlap in some circumstances, because whether an agency action is 'manifestly contrary to the statute' is important both under Chevron and under State Farm."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 130. |
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27, 229 (2001). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 131. |
See Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 Va. L. Rev. 187, 191 (2006) (defining step zero as a threshold inquiry into whether Chevron deference applies to an agency's interpretation of a statute). For a critical analysis of the merits and application of the Mead doctrine, see Adrian Vermeule, Introduction: Mead in the Trenches, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 347, 361 (2003). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 132. |
See infra note 215. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 133. |
Mead, 533 U.S. at 229-30. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 134. |
Christensen v. Harris Cty, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 135. |
Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106, 114 (2002). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 136. |
Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 222 (2002). 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. See, e.g., Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Thompson, 389 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (granting Chevron deference to an FDA decision letter); Davis v. EPA, 348 F.3d 772, 780 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (giving Chevron deference to an agency interpretation reached through informal adjudication). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 137. |
See Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit, 77 Fed. Reg. 30,377, 30,385 (May 23, 2012) (codified at 26 C.F.R. pts. 1, 602). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 138. |
135 S. Ct. 2480, 2495-96 (2015). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 139. |
Id. at 2488-89. See Linda D. Jellum & Richard Murphy, Developments in Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice: Judicial Review 3-9 (2015) (on file with CRS). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 140. |
Id. at 2489 (quoting Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 141. |
Id. 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." Id. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 142. |
See also Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444, 2449 (2014) (applying Chevron but rejecting one of EPA's interpretations as unreasonable "because it would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 143. |
Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 144. |
Id. at 145-46. The agency reasoned that nicotine is a "drug" within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Id. at 131. See 21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 145. |
Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 146. |
Id. at 160. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 147. |
Mead, 533 U.S. at 234-35. The Court has declined to adopt Chevron deference for a variety of agency actions that do not carry the force of law. See, e.g., Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016) (procedurally defective regulation);Wos v. E.M.A. ex rel Johnson, 133 S. Ct. 1391, 1402 (2013) (opinion letter); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 487-88 (2004) (internal guidance memorandum). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 148. |
Mead, 533 U.S. at 235. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 149. |
Id. at 235 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 150. |
Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 151. |
Id. 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. Wasserman, Deference Asymmetries: Distortions in the Evolution of Regulatory Law, 9 Tex. L. Rev. 625, 638-39 (2015); Zaring, supra note 127, at 161 ("So while in theory, de novo review is a very different standard from that of reasonableness, in practice it is difficult to see how courts would be able to ignore reasonable agency interpretations in reaching their conclusions."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 152. |
Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140; see generally Peter L. Strauss, "Deference" is Too Confusing—Let's Call Them "Chevron Space" and "Skidmore Weight," 112 Colum. L. Rev. 1143 (2012). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 153. |
See Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that de novo review requires the court to "review the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision previously had been rendered"); Zaring, supra note 127, at 146 ("De novo review is appropriate when agencies are interpreting laws that they do not have a special responsibility to administer, like the Constitution, the APA, or Title VII."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 154. |
Sorenson Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 755 F.3d 702, 706 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("[A]n agency has no interpretive authority over the APA."); Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 194 F.3d 72, 79 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting that "when it comes to statutes administered by several different agencies—statutes, that is, like the APA and unlike the standing provision of the Atomic Energy Act—courts do not defer to any one agency's particular interpretation"); Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. EPA, 336 F.3d 899, 910 n.11 (9th Cir. 2003) ("This Court reviews de novo the agency's decision not to follow the APA's notice and comment procedures."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 155. |
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F. Supp. 3d 145, 155-56 (D.D.C. 2016) ("FOIA, of course, affords complainants who bring suit under Section 552(a)(4)(B) a de novo review of the agency's withholding of information."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 156. |
See, e.g., Emp'r Sols. Staffing Grp. II, L.L.C. v. Off. of Chief Admin. Hearing Officer, 833 F.3d 480, 484 (5th Cir. 2016). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 157. |
See Cass Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, The Unbearable Rightness of Auer, Forthcoming, U. Chi. L. Rev. at 1 (January 16, 2016), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2716737. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 158. | Chevron did not apply every time a court evaluated an agency's proffered interpretation of a statute. See, e.g., Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) ("Interpretations such as those in opinion letters—like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law—do not warrant Chevron-style deference."). The initial step of determining whether the Chevron doctrine would apply to a particular case is often referred to as "Chevron step zero." See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 Va. L. Rev. 187, 191 (2006). Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139–40 (1944). Id. at 140. Id. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412–13 (2024). For more information on Loper Bright, see CRS Report R48320, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency Interpretations of Law, by Benjamin M. Barczewski (2024). Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 398–99; see 5 U.S.C. § 706. Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 399–400. Id. at 400–01. Id. The Court also rejected Chevron's background presumption that Congress intends for agency experts to resolve statutory ambiguities. Id. at 401–02. Even when ambiguity concerns a technical question, the Court reasoned, that does not indicate that Congress has wrested the power to authoritatively interpret the law from courts and given it to an agency. Id. Instead, Congress expects courts to resolve "technical statutory questions." Id. Id. at 402 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). Id. (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140). Id. at 402–03. Id. at 394 ("In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion. Congress has often enacted such statutes."). Id. at 394–95 ("For example, some statutes 'expressly delegate[]' to an agency the authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term.") (quoting Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425 (1977)). Id. at 395 ("Other[ statutes] empower an agency . . . to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a term or phrase that 'leaves agencies with flexibility,' such as 'appropriate' or 'reasonable.'") (quoting Michigan v. E.P.A., 576 U.S. 743, 752 (2015) (citations omitted). Id. Id. at 412–13. Id. at 408–09. Id. at 400. Id. at 388, 394, 399, 402; id. at 474–76 (Kagan, J., dissenting) ("First, the majority makes clear that what is usually called Skidmore deference continues to apply."). Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139 (1944). Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 386 ("Whatever respect an Executive Branch interpretation was due, a judge 'certainly would not be bound to adopt the construction given by the head of a department.'" (quoting Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. 497, 515 (1840))). See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 721 (2022); Nat'l Fed'n of Ind. Business v. OSHA, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (per curiam); King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 485–86 (2015); Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). For more information on the major questions doctrine, see CRS In Focus IF12077, The Major Questions Doctrine, by Kate R. Bowers (2022), and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10791, Supreme Court Addresses Major Questions Doctrine and EPA's Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Kate R. Bowers (2022). For a discussion on the major questions doctrine, its relationship to Chevron deference, and potential future applications following the Court's decision in Loper Bright, see Barczewski, Loper Bright Enterprises, supra note 177. Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160 (2000) ("[W]e are confident that Congress could not have intended to delegate a decision of such economic and political significance to an agency in so cryptic a fashion."); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231 (1994) ("It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination of whether an industry will be entirely, or even substantially, rate-regulated to agency discretion—and even more unlikely that it would achieve that through such a subtle device as permission to 'modify' rate-filing requirements."). Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. at 159. West Virginia, 597 U.S. at 700. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 506–07 (2023). Id. at 494. Id. at 501. Id. at 502–03 (noting that the economic impact of the loan forgiveness program "amounts to nearly one-third of the Government's $1.7 trillion in annual discretionary spending"). Id. at 496 (quoting MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231 (1994)). 5 U.S.C. § 706. Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 566 (2019) ("[We b]egin with a familiar problem in administrative law: For various reasons, regulations may be genuinely ambiguous. They may not directly or clearly address every issue; when applied to some fact patterns, they may prove susceptible to more than one reasonable reading."). Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 46 (1997). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 159. |
Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1339 (2013) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("In practice, Auer deference is Chevron deference applied to regulations rather than statutes."). Some courts have remarked that the degree of deference to agency regulations may be greater than to agency statutory interpretations. See Capital Network Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 28 F.3d 201, 206 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("Reviewing courts accord even greater deference to agency interpretations of agency rules than they do to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory terms."). However,distinguishing between the two doctrines may be difficult analytically. Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 584 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("It would seem that there are few, if any, cases in which the standard applicable under Chevron would yield a different result than the 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent' standard set forth in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.") abrogated on other grounds by Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 160. |
See Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 149-51 (1991). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 161. |
Bowles, 325 U.S. at 414; see Decker, 133 S. Ct. at 1339-40 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("The agency's interpretation will be accepted if, though not the fairest reading of the regulation, it is a plausible reading—within the scope of the ambiguity that the regulation contains."). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 162. | Kisor, 588 U.S. at 564. Id. at 573–74. Id. at 574–75 ("[A] court cannot wave the ambiguity flag just because it found the regulation impenetrable on first read."). Id. at 575 (stating that courts must consider "the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation, in all the ways it would if it had no agency to fall back on"). Id. at 575–76. Id.; see also Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (stating that a court will not defer to an agency interpretation that "is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."). The Court in Kisor explained that, for the agency's interpretation to be reasonable, "it must come within the zone of ambiguity the court has identified after employing all its interpretive tools." Kisor, 588 U.S. at 575–76. That is, a court should use the "text, structure, [and] history" of the regulation to "establish the outer bounds of permissible interpretation." Id. Id. at 576. Id. at 577 (explaining that agency pronouncements from lower-level staff may not qualify for such deference). Id. at 577–78 (explaining that some questions, such as ones "concerning the award of an attorney's fee" or clarifying "a simple common-law property term," could "fall more naturally into a judge's bailiwick"). Id. at 579 (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. at 155). Id. (citing Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 170 (2007)). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 163. |
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 256-57 (2006). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 164. |
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2166 (2012). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 165. | Compare Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 515 (1994) (noting that an interpretation that contradicts a prior interpretation receives less deference than | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 166. |
See Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1339 (2013) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing for the elimination of Auer deference); id. at 1338-39 (Roberts, C.J., concurring, joined by Alito, J.) (declaring that "[i]t may be appropriate to reconsider [Auer deference] in an appropriate case"); Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1213 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring) (questioning the constitutionality of Auer deference); id. at 1210-11 (Alito, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ("I await a case in which the validity of Seminole Rock may be explored through full briefing and argument."); id. at 1213 (Scalia, J., concurring) ("I would therefore restore the balance originally struck by the APA with respect to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, not by rewriting the Act in order to make up for Auer, but by abandoning Auer and applying the Act as written."). 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. For example, Chief Justice Roberts indicated that he is willing to reconsider Auer deference in Decker, 133 S. Ct. at 1338-39, but joined the Court's majority opinion in Mortgage Bankers, which listed qualifications of when Auer deference is appropriate but appeared to accept the doctrine's validity. Mortgage Bankers, 135 S. Ct. at 1208 n.4. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 167. |
See supra text accompanying note 166. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 168. |
On May 16, 2016, 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. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Bible, 136 S. Ct. 1607, 1608 (2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting from a denial of certiorari). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 169. |
5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 170. |
See Assoc. of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of the Fed. Res. Sys., 745 F.2d 677, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1984). See infra note 211. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 171. |
5 U.S.C. §553. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 172. | Kisor, 588 U.S. at 577. Id. at 588 n.5 (citing Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 256–57 (2006)). See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, Our Marbury: Loper Bright and the Administrative State, 74 Duke L.J. 1893, 1916 n. 6 (2025) (noting "that Loper Bright sits . . . uneasily with Kisor"); Sean Lyness, Chevron Deference's Demise Suggests Auer Won't Last Much Longer, Bloomberg Law (July 10, 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/chevron-deferences-demise-suggests-auer-wont-last-much-longer [https://perma.cc/YS8B-SNNR]; but see Thomas E. Nielsen & Krista A. Stapleford, What Loper Bright Might Portend for Auer Deference, Harvard Law Review (July 5, 2024), https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/07/what-loper-bright-might-portend-for-auer-deference/ [https://perma.cc/MTL3-HJTC]. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412, (2024) ("Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."). 5 U.S.C. § 706. Since the Court's decision in Loper Bright, lower courts, though recognizing potential tension between Kisor and Loper Bright, generally have continued to apply Kisor to agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations. See, e.g., United States v. James, 135 F.4th 1329, 1334 n.1 (11th Cir. 2025) ("Although perhaps Loper Bright has the potential to cast doubt on Kisor and Dupree's reasoning in future cases, it dealt with agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, not agency interpretations of their own regulations."); United States v. Peralta, No. 23-13647, 2024 WL 4603297, at *2 n.2 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024) ("It's worth noting, however, that while the Supreme Court mentioned Kisor several times in Loper Bright, it never said it had overruled it, which is unsurprising since the two cases involve different types of deference—Loper Bright addressed agency interpretation of statutes, whereas Kisor involved agency interpretation of its own regulations."); United States v. Boler, 115 F.4th 316, 322 n.4 (4th Cir. 2024) (noting that the Court's Loper Bright decision "calls into question the viability of Auer deference" but ultimately deciding to apply the Auer deference doctrine because Loper Bright "did not address the issue of agency interpretations of their own regulations"). Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 16 (2020) (explaining that the APA "requires agencies to engage in 'reasoned decisionmaking'" (citing Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2015))). 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Assoc. of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of the Fed. Res. Sys., 745 F.2d 677, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stating that "the 'arbitrary or capricious' provision–is a catchall, picking up administrative misconduct not covered by the other more specific paragraphs. . . . enabling the courts to strike down, as arbitrary, agency action that is devoid of needed factual support"). 5 U.S.C. § 553. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 173. |
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 174. | Id. at 43 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 168). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Id. Courts and commentators often refer to this doctrine as "hard look" review. See, e.g., Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, The Real World of Arbitrariness Review, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761, 763 (2008) ("In its seminal decision in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance Co., the Court entrenched hard look review and clarified its foundations."). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 177. |
556 U.S. 502, 514 (2009). 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. Kozel & Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, Administrative Change, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 112, 135-67 (2011). But see supra note 137 (noting that whether an agency's change in an interpretation of its own regulations receives less deference than a consistent interpretation appears unsettled). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 178. |
Id. at 514-15. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 179. |
Id. 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." Id. at 515. This requirement, however, does not stem from the change itself; rather, it derives from the need for a "reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy." Id. at 516. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 180. |
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 52 ("In this case, the agency's explanation for rescission of the passive restraint requirement is not sufficient to enable us to conclude that the rescission was the product of reasoned decisionmaking.") (emphasis in original); Petroleum Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 181. |
SEC v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 182. |
United States v. Dierckman, 201 F.3d 915, 926 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bagdonas v. Dep't of the Treasury, 93 F.3d 422, 426 (7th Cir. 1996)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 183. |
Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1993). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 184. |
See, e.g., Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 475 F.3d 319, 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 185. |
Ass'n of Private Sector Colls. & Univs. v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2010). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 186. |
See Lisa Schultz Bressman & Glen Staszewski, Judicial Review of Agency Discretion, A Guide to Judicial and Political Review of Federal Agencies 209-25 (2d ed. 2015). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 187. |
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., Local 2924 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 470 F.3d 375, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2006). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 188. |
Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. EEOC, 530 F.3d 925, 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 189. |
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101, 1124 (9th Cir. 2012). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 190. |
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 429 F.3d 1136, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2005). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 191. |
Office of Commc'n of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 629 F.3d 1024, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 192. |
Cin. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 69 F.3d 752, 761 (6th Cir. 1995). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 193. |
Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983); Zero Zone, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 668 (7th Cir. 2016); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 823 F.3d 641, 649 (D.C. Cir. 2016). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 194. |
Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476, 484 (2011). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 195. |
Id. at 485. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 196. |
Id. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 197. |
See Bressman & Staszewski, supra note 185, at 434-35 (offering numerous examples of agency actions found to be arbitrary and capricious). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 198. |
Petroleum Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 199. |
Tucson Herpetological Soc. v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870, 879 (9th Cir. 2009). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 200. |
Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 201. |
Office of Commc'n of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1441-42 (D.C. Cir. 1983). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 202. |
Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67, 80 (D.C. Cir. 2012). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 203. |
Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 93 (D.C. Cir. 2010). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 204. |
Dep't of State v. Coombs, 482 F.3d 577, 581 (D.C. Cir. 2007). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 205. |
Midwater Trawlers Coop. v. Dep't of Commerce, 282 F.3d 710, 720 (9th Cir. 2002). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 206. |
Tex. Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d 313, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2001). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 207. |
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 494 F.3d 188, 206 (D.C. Cir. 2007). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 208. |
5 U.S.C. §551(4). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 209. |
Id. §551(7). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 210. |
Compare Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445-46 (1915) (rule applying broadly) with Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373, 385 (1908) (individualized decision). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 211. |
5 U.S.C. §§556, 557. The APA mandates certain procedures when agencies conduct formal and informal adjudications, id. §§556-57 (formal adjudications); id. §555 (informal and formal adjudications), as well as formal and informal rulemaking. id. §§556-57 (formal rulemaking); id. §553 (informal rulemaking). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 212. |
5 U.S.C. §554. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 213. |
Id. §§556-57. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 214. |
Id. §553. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 215. |
Id. §§554, 556-57. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 216. |
Id. §555. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 217. |
Id. §706(2)(D). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 218. |
See supra "Requirements for Judicial Review." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 219. |
5 U.S.C. §553. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 220. |
Id. §553. More stringent requirements apply when agencies conduct "formal rulemaking," id. §§556-57, as opposed to informal rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. §553. The most common process for issuing rules is under the latter category. See CRS Report RL32240, The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 221. |
5 U.S.C. §553. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 222. |
See Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 382 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (ruling that a guidance document issued by the EPA that advised the public of how to engage in risk assessments in order to comply with EPA regulations qualified as a legislative rule); Chamber of Commerce v. Dep't of Labor, 174 F.3d 206, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that a directive issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that specified that certain industries would be subject to inspection absent adoption of specific procedures was a legislative rule); Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90, 95-96 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (ruling that an FDA document notifying the public that certain industries must comply with statutory requirements that were previously exempt was a legislative rule). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 223. |
See, e.g., Meister v. Dep't of Agric., 623 F.3d 363, 370 (6th Cir. 2010); Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. EPA, 336 F.3d 899, 909 n.11 (9th Cir. 2003); Warder v. Shalala, 149 F.3d 73, 79 (1st Cir. 1998). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 224. |
Id. §553(b)(3)(B). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 225. |
Jifry v. F.A.A., 370 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (D.C. Cir. 2004). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 226. |
Id. at 1180. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 227. |
See generally CRS Report R44356, The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking: Judicial Review of Agency Action, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 228. |
5 U.S.C. §§554, 556-57. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 229. |
SEC v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 209 (1947). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 230. |
5 U.S.C. §§554, 556-557. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 231. |
See 5 U.S.C. §§554, 556-57 (formal adjudications); id. §555 (informal and formal adjudications), |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 232. |
See Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson, 443 F.3d 12, 16-17 (1st Cir. 2006) (applying Chevron to determine whether the EPA may choose to utilize informal adjudicatory procedures); Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. EPA, 873 F.2d 1477, 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (same). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 233. |
See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1203 (2015); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 234. |
Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 544 (noting "the very basic tenet of administrative law that agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 235. |
Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (describing D.C. Circuit doctrine formulated by Paralyzed Veterans of America. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), whereby courts require agencies that change certain interpretive rules to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking); Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 535-36 (describing the D.C. Circuit's ruling in the case below). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 236. |
Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 548. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 237. |
Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1203. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 238. |
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009). |
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 52 ("In this case, the agency's explanation for rescission of the passive restraint requirement is not sufficient to enable us to conclude that the rescission was the product of reasoned decisionmaking."); Petroleum Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; SEC v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947). A reviewing court may, however, uphold a rule where the agency's decision is "of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned." State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)).
Seventh Dimension, LLC v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 1, 15 (2022) (quoting Bagdonas v. Dep't of the Treasury, 93 F.3d 422, 426 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 224 (2016) ("Whatever potential reasons the Department might have given, the agency in fact gave almost no reasons at all [and] the Department's conclusory statements do not suffice to explain its decision."); Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
See, e.g., Cboe Futures Exch., LLC v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 77 F.4th 971, 974 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (vacating agency order after finding agency did not adequately explain the reasons for its decision); Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 475 F.3d 319, 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
See, e.g., Ass'n of Private Sector Colls. & Univs. v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The D.C. Circuit has held that "[s]ignificant comments are those 'which, if true, raise points relevant to the agency's decision and which, if adopted, would require a change in an agency's proposed rule.'" City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706, 715 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Home Box Off., Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 n. 58 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279, 293–94 (2024) ("Although commenters posed this concern to EPA during the notice and comment period . . . EPA offered no reasoned response . . . . As a result, the applicants are likely to prevail on their argument that EPA's final rule was not 'reasonably explained.'" (citations omitted)).
See FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414, 423 (2021) ("The APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires that agency action be reasonable and reasonably explained.")
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., Local 2924 v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 470 F.3d 375, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. EEOC, 530 F.3d 925, 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 751–54 (holding action arbitrary and capricious for failure to consider cost of regulation).
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101, 1124 (9th Cir. 2012).
See, e.g., Ohio, 603 U.S. at 294; Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 429 F.3d 1136, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Off. of Commc'n of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 629 F.3d 1024, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
Cin. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 69 F.3d 752, 761 (6th Cir. 1995).
Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983); Zero Zone, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 668 (7th Cir. 2016); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm'n, 823 F.3d 641, 649 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 53 (2011).
Id. at 55–56.
Id.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 514 (2009). In ruling that the standard of review when considering the substance of a rule rescission is no more or less stringent, the Court rejected the Second and D.C. Circuits' position that the APA and the Court's precedent required a more substantial justification when an agency changes its position. Id. (discussing Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 456–57 (2d Cir. 2007), and NAACP v. FCC, 682 F.2d 993, 998 (D.C Cir. 1982)). See also Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 225 (2016) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (emphasizing that "where an agency has departed from a prior position, there is no 'heightened standard' of arbitrary-and-capricious review"); California by and through Becerra v. Azar, 950 F.3d 1067, 1096 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that initial agency positions are "not instantly carved in stone," and changes in agency policy therefore are not subject to heightened review).
Fox Television, 556 U.S. at 514 (stating that agencies "may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books.").
Id. at 514–15.
Id. That said, agencies still must adequately explain the 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." Id. at 515; Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30–33 (2020) (holding recission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative to be arbitrary and capricious when agency failed to consider "serious reliance interests" that the long-standing policy may have engendered). This requirement, however, does not stem from the change itself; rather, it derives from the need for a "reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy." Fox Television, 556 U.S. at 516.
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
See supra "Requirements for Judicial Review."
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 100 (2015); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978). Although agencies enjoy discretion to develop and apply their own procedures that supplement the APA's requirements, courts lack authority to impose additional requirements upon agencies. Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 544 (noting "the very basic tenet of administrative law that agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure").
Perez, 575 U.S. at 99 (describing D.C. Circuit doctrine formulated by Paralyzed Veterans of America. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), whereby courts require agencies that change certain interpretive rules to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking).
5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A).
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009).
5 U.S.C. § 553.
Id. § 553(b), (c).
Id. § 553(c).
United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting Am. Iron & Steel Inst. V. EPA, 568 F.2d 284, 293 (3d Cir. 1977); MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. FCC, 57 F.3d 1136, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (holding notice inadequate when information stating that certain parties would be subject to rule was found in a footnote in the proposed rule).
See Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
See Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 382 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (ruling that a guidance document issued by the EPA that advised the public of how to engage in risk assessments in order to comply with EPA regulations qualified as a legislative rule and should have been promulgated pursuant to notice-and-comment procedures). Procedural challenges often stem from when an agency issues a publication without providing opportunity to comment because the agency presents it as guidance, which is exempt from notice-and-comment requirements 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). If a court determines that the issued publication is actually a legislative rule, then the court will require the agency to undergo Section 553 procedures. See, e.g., Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Labor, 174 F.3d 206, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that a directive issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that specified that certain industries would be subject to inspection absent adoption of specific procedures was a legislative rule). For a discussion on guidance documents and judicial review, see Bowers, Agency Use of Guidance Documents, supra note 129.
5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B). A court will review an agency's findings and require the agency to undergo notice and comment procedures if the court finds the agency lacked good cause to skip the procedural requirements. See, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 90–91 (2012) (vacating and remanding agency rule issued without notice and comment because "EPA lacked good cause"). For a discussion of the APA's good cause exception, see CRS Report R44356, The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking, by Andrew S. Coghlan (2025).