Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

claims. 

II 
A 
A special statutory review scheme, this Court has recog-
nized, may preclude district courts from exercising jurisdic-
tion  over  challenges  to  federal  agency  action.    See,  e.g., 
Thunder Basin, 510 U. S., at 207.  District courts may ordi-
narily hear those challenges by way of 28 U. S. C. §1331’s 
grant of jurisdiction for claims “arising under” federal law. 
Congress, though, may substitute for that district court au-
thority an alternative scheme of review.  Congress of course 
may do so explicitly, providing in so many words that dis-
trict court jurisdiction will yield.  But Congress also may do 
so  implicitly,  by  specifying  a  different  method  to  resolve 
claims about agency action.  The method Congress typically 
chooses is the one used in both the Exchange Act and the 
FTC Act: review in a court of appeals following the agency’s 
own review process.  We have several times held that the 
creation of such a review scheme for agency action divests 
district courts of their ordinary jurisdiction over the covered 
cases.  See Thunder Basin, 510 U. S., at 207–212; Elgin v. 
Department of Treasury, 567 U. S. 1, 10–15 (2012); see also 
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Over-
sight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 489 (2010) (noting that statutory 
schemes  for  agency  review  “[g]enerally”  are  “exclusive”). 
The agency effectively fills in for the district court, with the 
court of appeals providing judicial review. 

But a statutory review scheme of that kind does not nec-
essarily  extend  to  every  claim  concerning  agency  action. 
Our decision in Thunder Basin made that point clear.  After 
finding that Congress’s creation of a “comprehensive review 
process” like the ones here ousted district courts of jurisdic-
tion, the Court asked another question: whether the partic-
ular claims brought were “of the type Congress intended to 
be reviewed within this statutory structure.”  510 U. S., at