Judicial Review
: When a party feels aggrieved by some agency action - whether an unfavorable
rule, an unfavorable decision in an agency hearing, the denial or revocation of
government benefits or licenses - often the last recourse is in the courts. Federal
agency actions are appealed into...
1 | P a g e Judicial Review JUDICIA L REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS: OVERVIEW Exam | Questions & 100% Correct Answers (Verified) | Latest Update | Grad e A+ 🗸🗸🗸 : When a party feels aggrieved by some agency action - whether an unfavorable rule, an unfavorable decision in an agency hearing, the denial or revocation of government benefits or licenses - often the last recour se is in the courts. Federal agency actions are appealed into federal courts (some into district court and some directly into a circuit court, depending on the statute), whereas state administrative problems are usually appealed first into state courts. Mo st judicial review will come under the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for this, but constitutional challenges might provide a separate basis. Administrative law courses usually include a study of the body of law governing the scope of judicial r eview, when it is available, and what standards of review courts will use in different types of cases. ANALYZING THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 🗸🗸🗸 : Treat jurisdiction, reviewability, and standing as separate issues. Jurisdiction usually depends o n a statute. Reviewability also depends on statutes but requires that you check timing, finality of agency action, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and 2 | P a g e statutory preclusion of review. (Reviewability is often clear -cut and might not be an issue warran ting discussion in some questions.) Standing requires a showing of actual injury, causation, and redressability, as well as the zone of interests test. The cases on standing are very inconsistent, so this is the area where you must be prepared to argue both sides. See Match -B-Be-Nash -She-Wish Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Patchak. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction over cases involving administrative agency actions? 🗸🗸🗸: Two statutory sources provide the basis for federal court jurisdictio n over actions by federal agencies: 1. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Parties who meet the APA requirements for a cause of action and constitutional rules for standing have a question arising under federal law so almost any case whos e jurisdiction is not otherwise authorized by statute will come under this statute. 2. Specific statutory jurisdiction. Many enabling statutes pertaining to particular agencies include provisions giving federal courts jurisdiction for judicial review. Most give jurisdiction directly to the courts of appeals, meaning an appeal from a final agency action will go directly there. A few give jurisdiction to federal district courts, like the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). What federal courts have jurisdiction over claims arising from administrative agency actions? 3 | P a g e 🗸🗸🗸 : It depends on which statute is furnishing the basis for review. Most enabling statutes pertaining to particular agencies include a provision giving jurisd iction directly to the courts of appeals, meaning an appeal from a final agency action will go directly there. See, e.g., the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 (c). A few give jurisdiction to federal district courts, like the Social Security Act . See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), meaning Social Security appeals go to the nearest federal district court after the agency has rendered its own final decision in the case. What courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions? 🗸🗸🗸 : 28 U.S.C. § 1331 allows parties to bring actions for federal judicial review into federal district court. Originally there was an "amount -in-controversy" requirement for jurisdiction over these claims, but that part of the statute was repealed, allowing cases to come into district court regardless of the amount at stake. What is the difference between reviewability and jurisdiction? 🗸🗸🗸 : Jurisdiction and reviewability are separate issues that are easily confused. Juris diction is the court's authority to hear a ce rtain type of case. Reviewability, for purposes of administrative law, is more like the question of whether a claim states a cause of action in other civil litigation contests. Some claims do have the proper procedural posture for judicial review to be app ropriate, or focus on a specific Issac that Congress has precluded from the scrutiny of the courts. For example, a court might have the jurisdiction to hear Social Security appeals generally, but a particular case might not be 4 | P a g e ready for judicial review bec ause the claimant has not exhausted his or her remedies within the agency's procedures. Similarly, a particular case might meet the requirements for judicial review (standing, appropriate cause of action, etc.), but a district court might lack jurisdiction to hear it because the relevant statute gave jurisdiction directly to the courts of appeals. What is "pendent jurisdiction" for purposes of administrative law? 🗸🗸🗸 : Pendent jurisdiction is where a court already has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the administrative agency's actions (either as a federal question or as provided in the agency's enabling statute), but the court also asserts jurisdiction over closely related state -law claims over which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. Spaceman Spiff asks his attorney to pursue litigation against a federal administrative agency, such as the FAA. The plaintiffs easily establish the court's jurisdiction over the matter (in fact, the agency stipulates to this). Then the court asserts jurisdi ction over some related or ancillary state -law claims (e.g., the existence of criminal activity in the plaintiff's business), over which the court would not have had jurisdiction otherwise. Does the court have legitimate jurisdiction here? 🗸🗸🗸 : This is pendent jurisdiction, where a court already has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the administrative agency's actions (either as a federal question or as provided in the agency's enabling statute), but the court also asserts jurisdiction over closely rel ated state -law claims over which the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller MASTER01. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $14.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
