Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 62

16 

CORNER POST, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FRS 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

Section 706 lays out the scope of judicial review.  As rele-
vant here, courts shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency 
action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or  otherwise  not  in  accordance  with  law.”    5  U. S. C. 
§706(2)(A).  Other subsections of §706 likewise focus exclu-
sively on what the agency did.  Did the agency act “in excess 
of statutory jurisdiction”?  §706(2)(C).  Did the agency act 
“without  observance  of  procedure  required  by  law”? 
§706(2)(D).

Section 702 is not to the contrary.  The majority suggests
otherwise, characterizing §702 as “equip[ping] injured par-
ties with a cause of action.”  Ante, at 5.  This is a misleading 
characterization. Section 702 restricts who may challenge
agency  action:  only  those  “person[s]  suffering  legal  wrong 
because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved 
by agency action.”  It is simply a limitation on who can sue. 
As such, it says nothing about the cause of action that such
a person might bring, nor does it establish that an injury is 
an  element  of  the  claim,  as  the  majority  mistakenly  sug-
gests.9  And that is for good reason, since, in administrative 

—————— 

9 The majority puts too much stock in the fact that §702 references an 
injury:  That reference actually does no more than highlight the distinc-
tion between what constitutes a claim and who can bring that claim.  See 
ante, at 4–5, and n. 1.  This type of distinction is commonplace in many 
areas of our jurisprudence.  Take, for example, the constitutional stand-
ing doctrine, which limits eligible plaintiffs to those who have suffered 
an  injury  in  fact  that  is  both  traceable  to  the  defendant’s  conduct  and 
redressable in court.  See FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 
U. S. 367, 380–385 (2024).  Whether a particular plaintiff has standing
to sue says nothing about the elements of the claim itself.  See Haaland 
v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255,  291 (2023) (“We do not reach the merits of 
these  claims  because  no  party  before  the  Court  has  standing  to  raise 
them”).  The distinction between what a claim is and who can bring it 
applies with full force here.  Section 702 codifies an injury requirement 
for bringing APA claims.  Whether a particular plaintiff was “adversely
affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant
statute” under §702 is a threshold inquiry about whether she is an ap-
propriate plaintiff; it has no bearing on whether the agency did, in fact,