Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 119.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

44

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Thomas, J., dissenting

Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U. S. 535, 542 (1988); Michigan
Academy, 476 U. S., at 670; Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S.
361, 373–374 (1974); Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 309–
310 (1944).

The rationale for this “presumption,” Abbott Laboratories,
supra, at 140, is straightforward enough: Our constitutional
structure contemplates judicial review as a check on adminis-
trative action that is in disregard of legislative mandates or
constitutional rights. As Chief Justice Marshall explained:

“ ‘It would excite some surprise if, in a government of
laws and of principle, furnished with a department
whose appropriate duty it is to decide questions of right,
not only between individuals, but between the govern-
ment and individuals; a ministerial ofﬁcer might, at
his discretion, issue this powerful process . . . leaving to
[the claimant] no remedy, no appeal to the laws of his
country, if he should believe the claim to be unjust. But
this anomaly does not exist; this imputation cannot be
cast on the legislature of the United States.’ ” United
States v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8, 28–29 (1835) (as quoted in
Gutierrez de Martinez, supra, at 424).

See also S. Breyer, R. Stewart, C. Sunstein, & M. Spitzer,
Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy 832 (4th ed. 1999)
(suggesting that “the presumption of review owes its source
to considerations of accountability and legislative supremacy,
ideas embodied in article I, and also to rule of law consid-
erations, embodied in the due process clause”); Michigan
Academy, supra, at 681–682, n. 12 (noting that interpreting
statute to allow judicial review would avoid the serious
constitutional issue that would arise if a judicial forum for
constitutional claims were denied).11

11 We have observed that Congress “reinforced” the presumption by
enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which “embodies the
basic presumption of judicial review to one ‘suffering legal wrong because
of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action