Source: https://nclej.org/chapter-5-1-c
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 08:02:48
Document Index: 26884378

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 702', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 553', '§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 1395', '§ 17', '§ 1252', '§ 1315', '§ 15', '§ 1997', '§ 405', '§ 553', '§ 7', '§ 561', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 554', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706']

5.1.C Express Causes of Action, Administrative Procedure Act - National Center for Law and Economic Justice
Although some federal statutes that create rights include their own mechanisms for judicial review of agency action affecting those rights, most are silent with respect to judicial review. In the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress expressly granted a private right of action to enforce federal rights against federal agencies.1 Because 5 U.S.C.§ 702 creates this right of action expressly, there is no need to look for an implied right of action against the federal government. The APA, then, waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity over suits “seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority,”2 unless another statute “that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”3
Although the APA may provide a right to sue, agency action may escape judicial review either under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), if it is exempted by statute from judicial review, or under § 701(a)(2), if it is committed to agency discretion. Section 701(a)(1) applies when a statute is sufficiently explicit and unequivocal to overcome the general presumption of reviewability first articulated in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner.5 The First Circuit, for example, held that a hospital’s challenge to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ refusal to reclassify it geographically was unreviewable in light of a provision of the Medicare Act that stated, “[T]he decision of the [Administrator] shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.”6 When the extent of preclusion of review is less clear, the Supreme Court tends to interpret the asserted limitation narrowly.7 This approach is also commonly taken to avoid the very thorny constitutional question presented where a statute is interpreted to preclude review of a colorable constitutional claim.8
Section 701(a)(2), which precludes judicial review “to the extent that … agency action is committed to agency discretion by law,” poses a more significant issue in APA litigation. Federal agencies routinely assert the Section 701(a)(2) exception, arguing that its seemingly limitless sweep precludes judicial review in all sorts of cases. As summarized below, early Supreme Court decisions limited the breadth of Section 701(a)(2), but more recently the trend has moved against the presumption of reviewability.
The Supreme Court’s current test for final agency action was articulated in Bennett v. Spear.27 There, the Court held that finality required satisfaction of two elements: (1) “the action must mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,” and (2) “the action must be one by which ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’ or from which ‘legal consequences will flow.’”28 The first element is satisfied when the agency offers its “last word” on the subject, even if that word is expressed less formally than a rule making or adjudication, and is subject to continuing agency review.29 The second element is met when the agency action “imposes an obligation, denies a right or fixes some legal relationship.”30 It is not satisfied when the agency action is no more than a nonbinding recommendation.31
The Supreme Court recently applied this test in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.32 In Sackett, the plaintiffs challenged an Environmental Protection Agency compliance order issued under Section 309 of the Clean Water Act. That order found that the plaintiffs had discharged pollutants into a wetland and ordered them to restore the land. The Court held that the order determined the plaintiffs’ rights and obligations and had consummated agency decision-making. Although plaintiffs were invited to inform the Environmental Protection Agency of errors in the order and to engage in informal discussions, no administrative hearings were permitted, making the order final.33
Each stage of the rulemaking process is subject to potential legal challenge. The rulemaking notice must explain what the agency proposes to do and why.60 The notice of proposed rulemaking must be sufficiently detailed to offer the public a reasonable opportunity to comment. When the final rule is sufficiently divergent from the proposed rule, it may be challenged on the ground that the initial notice was inadequate to put the public on notice that the resulting rule was contemplated by the agency and thus one that could have been commented upon. In this regard, the notice of proposed rulemaking may be found insufficient if the final regulations were not a “logical outgrowth” or not “sufficiently foreshadowed” in the notice of proposed rulemaking.61 In addition, the agency must disclose the technical data, if any, relied upon in developing the proposed rule so that it may be subject to comment.62 As explained further below, the agency is required to consider the comments and explain why it rejected plausible alternative approaches to the final rule as part of the general statement of “basis and purpose” required by 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).
In an important 2015 case, the Supreme Court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s approach in Paralyzed Veterans.72 The case involved the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. A 2004 Department of Labor regulation, promulgated pursuant to notice and comment procedures, provided examples of such exempt employees. In 2006, the Department issued an interpretive opinion letter concluding that mortgage-loan officers were exempt. In 2010, the Department reversed that interpretation without using notice and comment rulemaking. The Court held that the APA did not require government agencies to use notice and comment rulemaking in amending or repealing interpretive rules which themselves are issued without it.
… allowing a judicial precedent to foreclose an agency from interpreting an ambiguous statute … would allow a court’s interpretation to override an agency’s. Chevron’s premise is that it is for agencies, not courts, to fill statutory gaps. The better rule is to hold judicial interpretations contained in precedents to the same demanding Chevron step one standard that applies if the court is reviewing the agency’s construction on a blank slate: Only a judicial precedent holding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the agency’s interpretation, and therefore contains no gap for the agency to fill, displaces a conflicting agency construction.95
In addition, the Supreme Court recently held, in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television, that a more searching review is not required in case in which an agency reverses policy. According to the Court, the agency must supply the usual “reasoned explanation” for agency action and that explanation must “display awareness that it is changing position.”109 However, the court explained: “it need not demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.”110 The Court further held that arbitrary and capricious review is not applied more rigorously to agency actions that may implicate the Constitution.”111 As a result of Fox Television, arguments premised on the need for more rigorous review of agency policy reversals or policies that have constitutional overtones will not be successful.
1.5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial relief thereof.”). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and review under the Administrative Procedure Act apply only to federal agencies. See, e.g., Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992) (President is not an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act); Regional Management Corporation v. Legal Services Corporation, 186 F.3d 457, 462 (4th Cir. 1999) (Legal Services Corporation is not an agency).
2.5 U.S.C. § 702.
3.Id. For a recent case considering whether a particular federal statute bars a suit that would otherwise fall within the Administrative Procedure Act’s general waiver of sovereign immunity, see Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199, 2204-10 (2012).
4.For an excellent discussion of this issue, see Gary F. Smith, The Quid Pro Quo for Chevron Deference: Enforcing the Public Participation Requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 30 Clearinghouse Review 1132 (March-April 1997).
5.Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967). For the factors employed to determine whether a statute precludes judicial review, see Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 349 (1984).
6.See Jordan Hospital v. Shalala, 276 F.3d 72, 75 (1st Cir. 2002) (interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(10)(C)(iii)(II)); see also Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404 (1977); National Coalition to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (finding statute bars judicial review), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002).
7.See Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1373-74 (2012) (Clean Water Act does not impliedly preclude review of compliance orders, distinguishing United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) and United States v. Erika, Incorporated, 456 U.S. 201 (1982)); Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 US. 417 (1995); Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986); Adamo Wrecking Company v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978). See also Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 562 F.3d 1137, 1142-45 (11th Cir. 2009) (decision that immigrant is not eligible for temporary protected status is reviewable); Alto Dairy v. Veneman, 336 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003) (deciding not to infer from Congressional silence intent to preclude judicial review).
8.McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. 479 (1991); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-67 (1974); Lepre v. Department of Labor, 275 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001); cf. Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) (ultra vires action is not alone unconstitutional). See also cases collected in Richard Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.9 at 1663 (5th ed. 2010).
9.Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Incorporated v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
10.Id. at 410.
11.Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988).
12.Id. at 600.
14.Id. at 830. Agency rules subject to notice and comment rule making and having the force and effect of law are generally held to serve as “law to apply,” while policy statements and interpretative rules are not. See Pierce,supra note 8, 1011-12.
15.Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832-35. Compare Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (distinguishing between refusals to take enforcement action and refusals to initiate rulemakings). The Court also suggested that the presumption could be overcome if it were shown that the agency “has ‘consciously and expressly adopted a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” Id. at 833 n.4 (citation omitted). In Riverkeeper, Incorporated v. Collins, 359 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit held the exception not to apply in a case challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s refusal to impose certain conditions on a license to operate two nuclear power plants.
16.Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, 529 U.S. 1 (2000); Your Home Visiting Nurses Services v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449 (1999); see also Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993) (decision to reallocate funds from lump-sum appropriation is committed to agency discretion). An exception is Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 827 (2010), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(iii) does not preclude judicial review of decisions to reopen removal proceedings that a regulation, rather than a statute, places within the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) discretion.
17.See, e.g., Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 540 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2009) (Federal Advisory Committee Act’s “fairly balanced” requirement is not reviewable); Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte is unreviewable); Port of Seattle v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 499 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s decision to deny refunds for energy transactions after adjudication that such refunds were warranted is reviewable), cert. denied, sub nom. Puget Sound Energy Incorporated v. California, 558 U.S. 1136 (2010); Ohio Public Interest Research Group v. Whitman, 386 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004) (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision not to issue notice of deficiency under Clean Air Act is not reviewable); Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Wenker, 353 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2004) (finding Federal Advisory Committee Act challenges to advisory committees based on alleged violation of “inappropriate influence” provision non-reviewable but violation of “fair balance” requirement reviewable).
20.42 U.S.C. § 1315(a).
21.Beno, 30 F.3d at 1067.
23.American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 170 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 1999).
25.Pierce, supra note 8, § 15.1 at 1217-19; John Doe, Incorporated v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 484 F.3d 561, 567 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
26.See U.S. Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).
28.Id. at 178 (citations omitted).
29.The possibility of a revised determination based on new information does not make the decision non-final. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. at 1814. See Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission, 280 F.3d 1027, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2002), modified on reh’g by 293 F.3d 537 (D.C. Cir. 2002). See also Potash Association of New Mexico v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 367 F. App’x 960 (10th Cir. 2010) (agency opinion remanding matter is not final agency action); Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586, 594 (9th Cir. 2008).
30.Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company v. Consumer Products Safety Commission, 324 F.3d 726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
32.Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012). The Supreme Court more recently decided another Clean Water Act case and similarly found that a jurisdiction determination by the Army Corps of Engineers that a parcel of land contained waters of the United States, thereby requiring a permit for the discharge of any pollutant into those waters, was final agency action. United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016).
33.Id. at 1372.
35.Id. at 64.
36.Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
37.Examples of such statutes include the Social Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001).
38.McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969).
40.See also McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992); Christopher S. v. Stanislaus County Office of Education, 384 F.3d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004).
42.The extent to which 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requires exhaustion of remedies and to which the agency can waive the requirement is the subject of several arguably inconsistent decisions by the Supreme Court, most recently Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, 529 U.S. 1 (2000); see Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984); Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667; Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986). The issue is a significant one for legal aid attorneys because it governs when a challenge to rules and actions of the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services may be filed.
43.Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n.10 (1979).
44.See Chapter 3.4 of this Manual.
46.These issues are discussed further in Chapter 3.2 of this Manual.
47.Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).
48.Id. at 149. See National Association of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272, 1281-84 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
49.See National Park Hospitality Association v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (applying Abbott to find challenge to interpretive rule unripe for review); Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990) (challenge to regulation is ripe when there has been some “concrete action applying the regulation to the claimant’s situation in a fashion that harms or threatens to harm him”).
50.Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993).
51.Id. at 57.
52.Id. at 59.
53.For two post-Reno v. Catholic Social Services cases finding ripe challenges to restrictions on government benefits prior to application, see Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1996), and Riva v. Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003 (1st Cir. 1995).
54.Thunder Basin Coal Company v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994).
55.Courts entertained constitutional challenges when the claim was collateral to the administrative review process, that process was not suitable for such claims, and preclusion of review would cause irreparable injury. See, e.g., Kreschollek v. Southern Stevedoring Company, 78 F.3d 868 (3d Cir. 1996).
56.Formal rulemaking is a procedure that resembles an adjudicatory hearing at which testimony is taken subject to cross-examination. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(c), 556–557. Formal rulemaking rarely takes place and never occurs in the context of poverty law issues. For a discussion of formal rulemaking, see Pierce, supra note 8, § 7.2.
57.A fourth, negotiated rulemaking, is set forth in 5 U.S.C. §§ 561-583.
59.Courts do not have the authority to require agencies to follow procedures beyond those required under the APA, even when rulemaking requires resolution of contested issues of fact, absent extremely compelling and so far undefined circumstances. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
60.5 U.S.C. § 553(b).
62.American Radio Relay League v. Federal Communications Commission, 524 F.3d 227, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
63.Among these are exemptions for rules relating to “military or foreign affairs” and to matters relating to “agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(a). The good-cause exception is generally invoked when there is an urgent need to issue a rule, see, e.g., Jifry v. Federal Aviation Administration, 370 F.3d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (suspension of pilots’ certificates in wake of 9/11); Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association v. Federal Aviation Administration, 51 F.3d 212 (9th Cir. 1995) (air safety rule), and when public notice of a proposed rule may result in economic or other harm. See, e.g., Reeves v. Simon, 507 F.2d 455, 458-59 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1975) (finding good cause for regulation prohibiting preferential gasoline sales in light of nationwide shortage).
64.5 U.S.C. § 553.
66.Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 333 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2003); Warder v. Shalala, 149 F.3d 73, 80 (1st Cir. 1998); Mission Group Kansas v. Riley, 146 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1998); Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission v. O’Leary, 93 F.3d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1996); Hoctor v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 82 F.3d 165, 170 (7th Cir. 1996); Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll, 48 F.3d 1331 (4th Cir. 1995); New York City Employees’ Retirement System v. Securities Exchange Commission, 45 F.3d 7, 13 (2d Cir. 1995). See Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Distinguishing Legislative Rules from Interpretive Rules, 52 Administrative Law Review 547 (2000).
67.American Mining Congress, 995 F.2d at 1112. The third criterion was abandoned in Health Insurance Association of America v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
68.Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995).
69.See Mission Group Kansas, 146 F.3d at 775; United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court narrowly upheld interpretive rules in two such challenges. See Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87; Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994).
70.Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1003 (1998).
71.Id. at 586; Alaska Professional Hunters Association v. Federal Aviation Administration, 177 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The court observed in Paralyzed Veterans that the distinction between substantive and interpretive rules turns on how “distinctive” or “additive” the rule is to the statute. That is, if the interpretation defines vague statutory terms, like “fair,” it is more likely to be substantive. Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 588.
72.Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).
73.Croplife America v. Environmental Protection Agency, 329 F.3d 876, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
74.National Mining Association v. Secretary of Labor, 589 F.3d 1368, 1371 (11th Cir. 2009); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Compare Independent Equipment Dealers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, 372 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2004) and General Motors Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 363 F.3d 442, 450-51 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (letters that restated interpretation and imposed no new regulatory requirements were not reviewable) with Croplife, 329 F.3d at 883 (directive contained in press release stating, in departure with prior policy, that agency would not consider certain studies in its decision-making, was reviewable rule).
75.See Pacific Gas and Electric v. Federal Power Commission, 506 F.2d 33, 38-39 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
76.Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 452 F.3d 798, 806 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Professional and Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 600-601 (5th Cir. 1995); Rapp v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 52 F.3d 1510 (10th Cir. 1995).
77.Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Chevron deference is not owed to agencies without rulemaking power. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Peña, 44 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
78.Pierce,supranote 8, § 3.6 at 215.
79.Cases rejecting an agency interpretation on step 1 grounds are Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 129 (2009); Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Company, 534 U.S. 438 (2002). See also Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987); cf. Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561, 574 (2007) (rebuttable presumption that same term in two different sections of same statute must be interpreted same). Recent cases upholding agency interpretations of unambiguous statues are Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, 550 U.S. 81 (2007); National Cable Telecommunications Association v. Gulf Power Company, 534 U.S. 327 (2002); and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
80.See, e.g., Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191, 2203 (2014) (deference to BIA interpretation of immigration statutes is particularly appropriate); EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1609 (2014) (possibility that uncommon applications of rule could exceed agency authority does not justify invalidating otherwise reasonable rule in its entirety); Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, 131 S.Ct 704, 714-15 (2011); Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208, 129 (2009); United States v. Eurodif, 555 U.S. 305 (2009) (upholding agency’s new interpretation of ambiguous statue when courts upheld agency’s prior interpretation as reasonable); Global Crossing Telecommunications v. Metrophones Telecommunications, 550 U.S. 45 (2007); Household Credit Services v. Pfennig, 541 U.S. 232 (2004); Barnhart v. Walton, 535 US. 212 (2002); Securities Exchange Commission v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002); Verizon Communications, Incorporated v. Federal Communications Commission, 535 U.S. 467 (2002); Chevron U.S.A., Incorporated v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002); see also National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (deferring to reasonable agency regulation when agency was unable to comply with two conflicting statutory commands simultaneously). Similarly, when the statutory language leaves a “gap” for the agency to fill and it does so both reasonably and in compliance with procedural requirements, the result is binding. Long Island Care at Home v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 164 (2007).
81.Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); see Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) (holding that EPA’s interpretation of “appropriate and necessary” in Clean Water Act to exclude considerations of cost imposed by regulating power plant was unreasonable); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442-44 (2014); Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 129 (2009); Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association, 557 U.S. 519, 129 (2009); Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Incorporated, 535 U.S. 81 (2002); Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman, 204 F.3d 229, 234 (D.C. Cir. 2000); cf. Strickland v. Commissioner, 48 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1995) (upholding secretary of agriculture’s decision to exclude depreciation from cost of producing self-employment income because it is not unreasonable interpretation of Food Stamp Act).
82.Pierce, supra note 8, § 3.6 at 219. The Court in United States v. Mead Corporation, 533 U.S. 218 (2001), explained that the carefulness of the agency’s consideration of the interpretive question; its consistency, formality, and persuasiveness; and the expertise of the agency are factors in determining the measure of deference owed to an agency interpretation. Id. at 228. The duration of an agency’s interpretation, reflecting the carefulness of its consideration, is also a factor.Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, 131 S. Ct. 1325, 1335 (2011).
83.See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000); Auciello Iron Works v. National Labor Relations Board, 517 U.S. 781 (1996). The Court has recently held that Chevron applies to the interpretation of tax regulations. Mayo Foundation, 131 S.Ct at 714. Generally agency positions adopted for purposes of litigation are not accorded deference. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 212 (1988); Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179, 201 (2d Cir. 2004).
84.City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
85.See Federal Express Corporation v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (compliance manuals and internal directives); Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 554 U.S. 135, 128 (2008) (same); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 540 U.S. 461, 487-88 (2004) (internal guidance memos do not qualify for Chevron deference); Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587.
87.Mead Corporation, 533 U.S. at 231-32 (2001).
89.Id. at 226-27. For a case in which the Executive Branch office, here, the Attorney General, lacked the authority to issue an interpretive rule, which therefore was not entitled to Chevron deference, see Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (rejecting interpretive rule stating that Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which permitted use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicides, was not legitimate medical purpose under Controlled Substances Act).
90.The Supreme Court’s opinion in Mead offers some insight into the nature of the relevant analysis. The Court examined the statute authorizing the tariff rulings (and noted that they were subject to judicial review in the Court of International Trade) and agency practice (rulings were not binding on third parties, generally lacked reasoning, and were issued in vast numbers and by many offices). In contrast, the Court in Walton, 535 U.S. at 222, suggested that agency interpretations of its governing statute—interpretations which are not the product of formal adjudication or notice and comment rulemaking—may be subject to Chevron deference, depending on the “interpretive method and nature of the question at issue.” Where, as in Walton, the agency has expertise, the issue is interstitial and important to the administration of the program, the program is complex, and the agency studied the issue carefully and consistently, Chevron deference is owed. Mead and Walton cast doubt on the lower deference previously accorded to social security rulings. See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). At the same time, Mead has caused considerable confusion. See Adrian Vermuele, Mead in the Trenches, 71 George Washington Law Review 347 (2003).
91.See, e.g., The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 353 F.3d 1051, 1067-69 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
92.Smith, supranote 4, at 1151 & n.191, citing Cerventez v. Sullivan, No. CIVS-89-529 LKK, slip op. at 19 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 1993); cf. Nebraska v. Department of Health and Human Services, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).
93.National Cable and Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
94.Id. at 981-82. See Mayo Foundation, 131 S. Ct. at 713. In Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125-26 (2016), the Court cited Brand X and reiterated that “[a]gencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasonable explanation for the change.” However, it cautioned that the “agency must at least ‘display awareness that it is changing position’ and ‘show that there are good reasons for the new policy.'” Encino Motorcars, 136 S. Ct. at 2126 (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)). When, as was the case with the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the agency failed to make a reasoned explanation for its change of interpretation, that explanation is entitled to no Chevron deference.
95.Id. at 982-83 (citations omitted).
96.Administrative rules or interpretations of an agency’s ambiguous regulation are entitled to deference. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-63 (1997). However, such deference is not due if the regulation interpreted merely parrots the governing statute. Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 256-57. In a recent Supreme Court decision on Auer deference, the Court upheld an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous banking regulation because it was not a post hoc rationalization, plainly erroneous, or inconsistent with the language of the regulation. Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, 131 S. Ct. 871, 881 (2011). See also Talk America Incorporated v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 131 S.Ct. 2254 (2011) (deferring to FCC’s novel interpretation of regulation expressed in amicus brief). In 2013, several members of the Court indicated that, when presented with the proper case, they were poised to reconsider Auer deference and perhaps terminate the concept. See Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 133 S.Ct. 1326, 1339 (2013) (Roberts, C.J., concurring); id. at 1340-42 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
97.5 U.S.C. § 554(a).
98.Id. § 706(2)(E).
99.Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, 227 U.S. 88, 91 (1913).
100.Allentown Mack Sales and Service, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, 522 U.S. 359 (1998).
101.5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
102.U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 7 (2001).
103.Bangor Hydro-Electric Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 78 F.3d 659, 663 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Aman v. Federal Aviation Administration, 856 F.2d 946, 950 n.3 (7th Cir. 1983).
104.5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
105.Northern States Power Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 30 F.3d 177, 180 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
106.AT&T Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, 394 F.3d 933, 936 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Roberts, J.).
107. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 540 U.S. 461, 497 (2004) (citations omitted). See also National Association of Home Builders, 551 U.S. 644 (decision by higher office within agency to change decision of lower level decisionmaker is not, in and of itself, arbitrary and capricious).
108.Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (Environmental Protection Agency’s decision not to initiate rulemaking to address greenhouse gas emissions from new cars was arbitrary and capricious).
109.Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 552, 129 (2009).