system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 420 U.S. 136 95 S.Ct. 847. 43 L.Ed.2d 82 Russell E. TRAIN, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner,v.CAMPAIGN CLEAN WATER, INC. No. 73—1378. Argued Nov. 12, 1974. Decided Feb. 18, 1975. Sol. Gen. Robert H. Bork, for petitioner. W. Thomas Jacks, Washington, D.C., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 On January 15, 1973, respondent filed a complaint in the District Court seeking to compel the petitioner, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to allot among the States the full sums authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1973 and 1974 by § 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as added by the Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 839, 33 U.S.C. § 1287 (1970 ed., Supp. III), for federal grants to municipalities for construction of publicly owned waste treatment works. Although conceding in the trial court that the Administrator had a measure of discretion in making the allot- 2 [Amicus Curiae Information from pages 136-137 intentionally omitted] ments authorized by § 205 of the Act, 86 Stat. 837, 33 U.S.C. § 1285 (1970 ed., Supp. III), respondent asserted that the Administrator had abused his discretion by allotting only 45% of the sums authorized to be appropriated by § 207. In sustaining respondent's position, the District Court rejected the holding by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in City of New York v. Ruckelshaus, 358 F.Supp. 669 (1973), that the Administrator has no discretion to allot less than the full amounts authorized by the Act. The Court of Appeals proceeded on the premise that there was discretion to control or delay allotments but concluded that further proceedings were essential to determine whether the Administrator's discretion had been abused. The Administrator petitioned for certiorari, asserting that the exercise of his discretion to allot funds under § 205 is not subject to judicial review.* We granted certiorari, 416 U.S. 969, 94 S.Ct. 1991, 40 L.Ed.2d 557 (1974), and heard the case with Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 839, 43 L.Ed.2d 1. 3 We held in Train v. City of New York that the Administrator has no authority under § 205 to allot less than the full amounts sought to be appropriated under § 207. Because that holding is at odds with the premise underlying the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the opinion in Train v. City of New York. 4 So ordered. 5 Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the result. * The petition also asserted that the doctrine of sovereign immunity foreclosed ordering the Administrator to allot funds that he had withheld in the course of exercising his discretion under the Act. In light of Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 839, 42 L.Ed.2d 1, and our disposition of the instant case, we need not address this question.

assistant: 8