Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 120.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 1 (2000)

45

Thomas, J., dissenting

Contrary to the Secretary’s representation, Brief for Pe-
titioners 31–32, the presumption favors not merely judicial
review “at some point,” but preenforcement judicial review.
While it is true that the presumption may not be quite as
strong when the question is now-or-later instead of now-or-
never, see Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U. S. 200,
207, n. 8, 215, n. 20 (1994), our cases clearly establish that the
presumption applies in the former context.
Indeed, Abbott
Laboratories, the “important case . . . which marks the re-
cent era of increased access to judicial review,” Breyer,
supra, at 831, itself involved a preenforcement challenge to
a regulation. Although the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA) did not authorize a preenforcement challenge to
the type of regulation the Secretary had issued, and indeed
expressly enumerated certain other kinds of regulations for
which preenforcement review was available, we explained
that these indicia of congressional intent must be viewed
through the lens of the presumption:

“The ﬁrst question we consider is whether Congress by
the [FDCA] intended to forbid pre-enforcement review
of this sort of regulation promulgated by the Com-
missioner. The question is phrased in terms of ‘pro-
hibition’ rather than ‘authorization’ because a survey of
our cases shows that judicial review of a ﬁnal agency
action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless
there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the
purpose of Congress.” Abbott Laboratories, 387 U. S.,
at 139–140.

We thus held that the suit could proceed.

Id., at 148.

More recently, in Haitian Refugee Center, we reafﬁrmed
the applicability of the presumption in the context of a pre-
enforcement challenge. At issue in that case was the consti-
tutionality of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s

within the meaning of a relevant statute.’ ” Abbott Laboratories v. Gard-
ner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) (quoting 5 U. S. C. § 702 (1964 ed., Supp. III)).