Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAgency Enforcement DiscretionAPA5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)committed to agency discretion by lawFDA
Facts
Respondents were prison inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection under Oklahoma and Texas law. They petitioned the FDA, arguing that drugs approved for medical purposes were being used for an unapproved purpose in executions, were misbranded, and should not be distributed for that use without FDA approval as safe and effective. They asked the FDA to investigate, relabel, seize the drugs, and recommend prosecution of those involved in distribution for executions. The FDA refused, stating that its jurisdiction was unclear and that, even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline to act under its enforcement discretion.
Issue
Whether the FDA's decision not to take the requested investigatory and enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. More specifically, the question is whether such a refusal is action "committed to agency discretion by law" under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
Rule
Under APA § 701(a)(2), agency decisions not to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings are presumptively unreviewable because they are generally committed to agency discretion by law. That presumption may be rebutted only if the substantive statute provides meaningful standards or guidelines limiting the agency's enforcement discretion and thus supplies law for a court to apply.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Residents of Tucson petition the Federal Consumer Safety Bureau, a federal agency, to investigate and seek civil penalties against a distributor that allegedly sold mislabeled home-heating units. The statute says the agency "is authorized" to investigate violations and may seek injunctions or penalties, but it gives no criteria for when enforcement must be pursued. The agency declines, explaining that it is prioritizing other hazards and has limited staff.
If the residents sue under the APA to challenge the agency's refusal to begin enforcement proceedings, what is the strongest argument for dismissing the suit?
Explanation. Under the majority opinion, agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings are presumptively unreviewable under APA § 701(a)(2). That presumption rests on the lack of meaningful judicial standards and on the agency's need to balance resources, likelihood of success, and enforcement priorities. Here the statute is framed in permissive terms and provides no meaningful standard limiting the agency's choice, so the strongest argument is that the matter is committed to agency discretion by law.