Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-71_omjp.pdf
Page Number: 14

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2018) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

§1533(b)(2).  To satisfy its obligation to consider economic
impact, the Service commissioned a report estimating the
costs  of  its  proposed  critical-habitat  designation.    The 
Service  concluded  that  the  costs  of  designating  the  pro-
posed areas, including Unit 1, were not “disproportionate” 
to the conservation benefits and, “[c]onsequently,” declined
to make any exclusions.

Weyerhaeuser  claims  that  the  Service’s  conclusion 
rested  on  a  faulty  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of
designation and that the resulting decision not to exclude 
should  be  set  aside.  Specifically,  Weyerhaeuser  contends 
that the Service improperly weighed the costs of designat-
ing Unit 1 against the benefits of designating all proposed
critical  habitat,  rather  than  the  benefits  of  designating 
Unit  1  in  particular.  Weyerhaeuser  also  argues  that  the 
Service  did  not  fully  account  for  the  economic  impact  of 
designating Unit 1 because it ignored, among other things,
the  costs  of  replacing  timber  trees  with  longleaf  pines, 
maintaining  an  open  canopy  through  controlled  burning,
and the tax revenue that St. Tammany Parish would lose 
if Unit 1 were never developed.  Brief for Petitioner 53–54. 
The  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  consider  Weyerhaeuser’s
claim because it concluded that a decision not to exclude a 
certain area from critical habitat is unreviewable. 

The  Administrative  Procedure  Act  creates  a  “basic 
presumption  of  judicial  review  [for]  one  ‘suffering  legal
wrong  because  of  agency  action.’ ”    Abbott  Laboratories  v. 
Gardner,  387  U. S.  136,  140  (1967)  (quoting  5  U. S. C. 
§702).  As  we  explained  recently,  “legal  lapses  and  viola-
tions  occur,  and  especially  so  when  they  have  no  conse-
quence.  That  is  why  this  Court  has  so  long  applied  a
strong presumption favoring judicial review of administra-
tive  action.”  Mach  Mining,  LLC  v.  EEOC,  575  U. S.  ___, 
___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 7–8).  The presumption may be
rebutted  only  if  the  relevant  statute  precludes  review,  5
U. S. C. §701(a)(1), or if the action is “committed to agency