Darby v. Cisneros
Citation and Court
Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). United States Supreme Court.
Facts
Darby, a HUD-subsidized housing developer, was debarred from participation in federal programs. HUD regulations provided for an optional appeal to the Secretary, but Darby sought immediate judicial review in federal court without exhausting that administrative appeal. The lower courts dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, applying a judicially created exhaustion requirement.
Issue
Whether federal courts may impose a common-law exhaustion requirement as a prerequisite to APA judicial review when neither the agency’s enabling statute nor the agency’s own regulations require exhaustion of administrative appeals.
Holding
The Supreme Court held unanimously that APA §704 governs exhaustion of administrative remedies and that courts may not impose additional common-law exhaustion requirements beyond what the statute or agency rules demand.
Rule / Doctrine
APA §704 provides that agency action is “final” and thus reviewable when it is final agency action “for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Further agency review is required only when expressly required by statute or agency rule. Federal courts have no residual common-law authority to impose exhaustion requirements on top of those Congress and agencies have prescribed.
Significance
Darby limits judicial power to create procedural obstacles to APA review. It means that unless Congress or the agency itself mandates exhaustion, a party may immediately seek judicial review of final agency action. The case also clarifies the interplay between the exhaustion doctrine and APA §704’s finality requirement.