Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Administrative Law

401 U.S. 402 (1971)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawscope of reviewrecordAPAjudicial review701706arbitrary and capricious

Facts

Federal funds were approved for a six-lane interstate highway segment through Overton Park, a public park in Memphis, which would destroy 26 acres and sever the zoo from the rest of the park. Sections 4(f) and 138 barred approval of highway projects using public parkland unless there was no feasible and prudent alternative and the project included all possible planning to minimize harm. The Secretary approved the route and design without issuing formal factual findings explaining why no feasible and prudent alternatives existed or why further harm-minimizing design changes could not be made. In the litigation, respondents relied on affidavits prepared for the lawsuit rather than the full administrative record before the Secretary at the time of decision.

Issue

Whether the Secretary's approval of federal funding for a highway through a public park was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, what standard of review applied, and whether review could rest solely on post hoc litigation affidavits rather than the full administrative record.

Rule

Agency action is reviewable under the APA unless review is statutorily precluded or the action is committed to agency discretion by law, and the latter exception is very narrow, applying only where there is no law to apply. For informal agency action like this, the court does not apply substantial-evidence or de novo review, but instead conducts a searching and careful review under APA § 706 to determine whether the agency acted within statutory authority, considered the relevant factors, and avoided clear error of judgment, while not substituting its own judgment for the agency's. Review must be based on the whole administrative record before the agency at the time of decision, not on post hoc rationalizations in litigation affidavits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress authorizes the Federal Transit Office to fund rail extensions but provides that the agency "shall not approve" any project using publicly owned wetlands unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm. The agency approves a route through wetlands near Savannah, Georgia, and argues in court that the decision is unreviewable because route selection is committed to its discretion.

How should the court most likely rule on reviewability?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, APA review is available unless review is precluded by statute or the action is committed to agency discretion by law. That exception is very narrow and applies only where there is no law to apply. A statute barring approval unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and requiring all possible planning to minimize harm provides clear, specific standards for judicial review.