APA Judicial Review (5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706)
The APA’s judicial review provisions (§§ 701–706) establish the default framework for challenging federal agency action in federal court.
§ 701 — Application; Definitions
Judicial review under the APA is available except where:
- Statutes preclude review (§ 701(a)(1)) — express or implied statutory preclusion
- Agency action is committed to agency discretion by law (§ 701(a)(2)) — applies when there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion” (Heckler v. Chaney, 1985)
Heckler v. Chaney (1985): agency decisions not to enforce (prosecutorial discretion) are presumptively unreviewable under § 701(a)(2) — no law to apply.
§ 702 — Right of Review
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
Zone of interests test: a plaintiff must assert an interest “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated” by the statute in question (Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 1970; Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass’n).
§ 704 — Actions Reviewable
Final agency action is reviewable. Action is final when:
- It marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, AND
- Rights or obligations have been determined, or legal consequences flow from it (Bennett v. Spear, 1997)
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required.
§ 706 — Scope of Review
Courts shall:
- Hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be:
- (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law
- (B) Contrary to constitutional right
- (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction or authority
- (D) Without observance of procedure required by law
- (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence (for formal rulemaking and adjudication)
- (F) Unwarranted by the facts (de novo in § 554 adjudications)
Arbitrary and Capricious Review (§ 706(2)(A))
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm (1983): An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency:
- Relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider
- Entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem
- Offered an explanation counter to the evidence
- Is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or product of agency expertise
Substantial Evidence (§ 706(2)(E))
More demanding than arbitrary and capricious: the agency’s factual findings must be supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Applied to formal rulemaking and on-the-record adjudication.