Dunlop v. Bachowski
Citation and Court
421 U.S. 560 (1975), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Bachowski, a union member, complained to the Secretary of Labor (Dunlop) that a union election had been conducted in violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The Secretary investigated and declined to bring a lawsuit to set aside the election. Bachowski sought judicial review of that decision not to sue.
Issue
Whether a federal court may review the Secretary of Labor’s decision not to file suit to set aside a union election that the Secretary found not to have violated the LMRDA.
Holding
The Secretary’s decision not to sue is reviewable under the APA for abuse of discretion, though the scope of review is narrow; the agency must provide a statement of reasons for its decision, but the decision is entitled to substantial deference.
Rule / Doctrine
Agency decisions not to take enforcement action are presumptively reviewable under the APA unless Congress has committed the decision entirely to agency discretion. However, such decisions are reviewed under a highly deferential standard, and courts will not substitute their judgment for the agency’s on enforcement priorities.
Significance
Dunlop v. Bachowski is an important pre-Heckler v. Chaney (1985) case on the reviewability of agency inaction. It required the agency to provide reasons for its non-enforcement decision — a principle later qualified by Heckler’s broad non-reviewability presumption for enforcement decisions.