Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/508/182
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 22:55:59
Document Index: 66786307

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 552', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 551', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553']

Michael E. LINCOLN, Acting Director of the Indian Health Service, et al., Petitioners, v. Grover VIGIL et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
508 U.S. 182 (113 S.Ct. 2024, 124 L.Ed.2d 101)
The Indian Health Service receives yearly lump-sum appropriations from Congress, and expends the funds under authority of the Snyder Act and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to provide health care for American Indian and Alaska Native people. Out of these appropriations the Service funded, from 1978 to 1985, the Indian Children's Program, which provided clinical services to handicapped Indian children in the Southwest. Congress never expressly authorized or appropriated funds for the Program but was apprised of its continuing operation. In 1985, the Service announced that it was discontinuing direct clinical services under the Program in order to establish a nationwide treatment program. Respondents, Indian children eligible to receive services under the Program, filed this action against petitioners (collectively, the Service), alleging, inter alia, that the decision to discontinue services violated the federal trust responsibility to Indians, the Snyder Act, the Improvement Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In granting summary judgment for respondents, the District Court held that the Service's decision was subject to judicial review, rejecting the argument that the decision was "committed to agency discretion by law" under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2). The court declined to address the merits of the Service's action, however, holding that the decision to discontinue the Program amounted to a "legislative rule" subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, § 553, which the Service had not fulfilled. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, even though no statute or regulation mentioned the Program, the repeated references to it in the legislative history of the annual appropriations Acts, in combination with the special relationship between Indian people and the Federal Government, provided a basis for judicial review. The court also reasoned that this Court's decision in Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 39 L.Ed.2d 270, required the Service to abide by the APA's notice-and-comment procedures before cutting back on a congressionally created and funded program for Indians.
For several years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Indian Health Service provided diagnostic and treatment services, referred to collectively as the Indian Children's Program, to handicapped Indian children in the Southwest. In 1985, the Service decided to reallocate the Program's resources to a nationwide effort to assist such children. We hold that the Service's decision to discontinue the Program was "committed to agency discretion by law" and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), and that the Service's exercise of that discretion was not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements imposed by § 553.
* The Indian Health Service, an agency within the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services, provides health care for some 1.5 million American Indian and Alaska Native people. Brief for Petitioners 2. The Service receives yearly lump-sum appropriations from Congress and expends the funds under authority of the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13, and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. So far as it concerns us here, the Snyder Act authorizes the Service to "expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians," for the "relief of distress and conservation of health." 25 U.S.C. 13.1 The Improvement Act authorizes expenditures for, inter alia, Indian mental-health care, and specifically for "therapeutic and residential treatment centers." 25 U.S.C. 1621(a)(4)(D).
The Service employs roughly 12,000 people and operates more than 500 health-care facilities in the continental United States and Alaska. See Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1993 before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 4, p. 32 (1992); Brief for Petitioners 2. This case concerns a collection of related services, commonly known as the Indian Children's Program, that the Service provided from 1978 to 1985. In the words of the Court of Appeals, a "cloud of bureaucratic haze" obscures the history of the Program, Vigil v. Rhoades, 953 F.2d 1225, 1226 (CA10 1992), which seems to have grown out of a plan "to establish therapeutic and residential treatment centers for disturbed Indian children." H.R.Rep. No. 94-1026, pt. 1, p. 80 (1976) (prepared in conjunction with enactment of the Improvement Act). These centers were to be established under a "major cooperative care agreement" between the Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, id., at 81, and would have provided such children "with intensive care in a residential setting." Id., at 80.
Nevertheless, the Service had not abandoned the proposal for a nationwide treatment program, and in June 1985 it notified those who referred patients to the Program that it was "re-evaluating the Program's purpose . . . as a national mental health program for Indian children and adolescents." App. 77. In August 1985, the Service determined that Program staff hitherto assigned to provide direct clinical services should be reassigned as consultants to other nationwide Service programs, 953 F.2d, at 1226, and discontinued the direct clinical services to Indian children in the Southwest. The Service announced its decision in a memorandum, dated August 21, 1985, addressed to Service offices and Program referral sources:
"As you are probably aware, the Indian Children's Program has been involved in planning activities focusing on a national program effort. This process has included the termination of all direct clinical services to children in the Albuquerque, Navajo and Hopi reservation service areas. During the months of August and September, . . . staff will see children followed by the program in an effort to update programs, identify alternative resources and facilitate obtaining alternative services. In communities where there are no identified resources, meetings with community service providers will be scheduled to facilitate the networking between agencies to secure or advocate for appropriate services." App. 80.
The Service invited public "input" during this "difficult transition," and explained that the reallocation of resources had been "motivated by our goal of increased mental health services for all Indian children." Ibid.2
The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents. Vigil v. Rhoades, 746 F.Supp. 1471 (NM 1990). The District Court held that the Service's decision to discontinue the Program was subject to judicial review, rejecting the argument that the Service's decision was "committed to agency discretion by law" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2). 746 F.Supp., at 1479. The court declined on ripeness grounds, however, to address the merits of the Service's action. It held that the Service's decision to discontinue the Program amounted to the making of a "legislative rule" subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, 5 U.S.C. 553, and that the termination was also subject to the APA's publication requirements for the adoption of "statements of general policy," § 552(a)(1)(D). See 746 F.Supp., at 1480, 1483. Because the Service had not met these procedural requirements, the court concluded that the termination was procedurally invalid and that judicial review would be "premature." Id., at 1483. The court ordered the Service to reinstate the Program, id., at 1486-1487, and the Solicitor General has represented that a reinstated Program is now in place. Brief for Petitioners 9.
First is the question whether it was error for the Court of Appeals to hold the substance of the Service's decision to terminate the Program reviewable under the APA. The Act provides that "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 review thereof," 5 U.S.C. 702, and we have read the Act as embodying a "basic presumption of judicial review." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1511, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). This is "just" a presumption, however, Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 349, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 2455, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984), and under § 701(a)(2) agency action is not subject to judicial review "to the extent that" such action "is committed to agency discretion by law."3 As we explained in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), § 701(a)(2) makes it clear that "review is not to be had" in those rare circumstances where the relevant statute "is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion." See also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 599-600, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 2052, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820-821, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). "In such a case, the statute ('law') can be taken to have 'committed' the decisionmaking to the agency's judgment absolutely." Heckler, supra, at 830, 105 S.Ct. at 1655.
Like the decision against instituting enforcement proceedings, then, an agency's allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation requires "a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise": whether its "resources are best spent" on one program or another; whether it "is likely to succeed" in fulfilling its statutory mandate; whether a particular program "best fits the agency's overall policies"; and, "indeed, whether the agency has enough resources" to fund a program "at all." Heckler, 470 U.S., at 831, 105 S.Ct., at 1655. As in Heckler, so here, the "agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Id., at 831-832, 105 S.Ct., at 1656. Of course, an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities: Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes (though not, as we have seen, just in the legislative history). See id., at 833, 105 S.Ct., at 1656. And, of course, we hardly need to note that an agency's decision to ignore congressional expectations may expose it to grave political consequences. But as long as the agency allocates funds from a lump-sum appropriation to meet permissible statutory objectives, § 701(a)(2) gives the courts no leave to intrude. "To that extent," the decision to allocate funds "is committed to agency discretion by law." § 701(a)(2).
We next consider the Court of Appeals's holding, quite apart from the matter of substantive reviewability, that before terminating the Program the Service was required to abide by the familiar notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 553 provides generally that an agency must publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and afford "interested persons an opportunity to participate . . . through submission of written data, views, or arguments." §§ 553(b), (c). The same section also generally requires the agency to publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date and incorporate within it "a concise general statement" of the rule's "basis and purpose." §§ 553(c), (d). There are exceptions, of course. Section 553 has no application, for example, to "a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts." § 553(a)(2).5 The notice-and-comment requirements apply, moreover, only to so-called "legislative" or "substantive" rules; they do not apply to "interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice." § 553(b). See McLouth Steel Products Corp. v. Thomas, 267 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 370, 838 F.2d 1317, 1320 (1988); Community Nutrition Institute v. Young, 260 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 296-297, 818 F.2d 943, 945-946 (1987) (per curiam ); id., at 301-303, 818 F.2d, at 950-952 (Starr, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Anthony, Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, Guidances, Manuals, and the Like—Should Federal Agencies Use Them to Bind the Public?, 41 Duke L.J. 1311, 1321 (1992); see generally Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 301, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1717, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (noting that this is "the central distinction among agency regulations found in the APA").
It is undisputed that the Service did not abide by these notice-and-comment requirements before discontinuing the Program and reallocating its resources. The Service argues that it was free from any such obligation because its decision to terminate the Program did not qualify as a "rule" within the meaning of the APA. Brief for Petitioners 29-34. Respondents, to the contrary, contend that the Service's action falls well within the Act's broad definition of that term. § 551(4).6 Brief for Respondents 17-19. Determining whether an agency's statement is what the APA calls a "rule" can be a difficult exercise. We need not conduct that exercise in this case, however. For even assuming that a statement terminating the Program would qualify as a "rule" within the meaning of the APA, it would be exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of § 553.7 Termination of the Program might be seen as affecting the Service's organization, but "rules of agency organization" are exempt from notice-and-comment requirements under § 553(b)(A). Moreover, § 553(b)(A) also exempts "general statements of policy," which we have previously described as " 'statements issued by an agency to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.' " Chrysler Corp., supra, at 302, n. 31, 99 S.Ct., at 1718, n. 31 (quoting Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 30, n. 3 (1947)). Whatever else may be considered a "general statement of policy," the term surely includes an announcement like the one before us, that an agency will discontinue a discretionary allocation of unrestricted funds from a lump-sum appropriation.
Our decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), confirms our conclusion that the Service was not required to follow the notice-and- comment procedures of § 553 before terminating the Program. Overton Park dealt with the Secretary of Transportation's decision to authorize the use of federal funds to construct an interstate highway through a public park in Memphis, Tennessee. Private citizens and conservation organizations claimed that the Secretary's decision violated federal statutes prohibiting the use of federal funds for such a purpose where there existed a " 'feasible and prudent' " alternative route, id., at 405, 91 S.Ct., at 818 (citations omitted), and argued, inter alia, that the Secretary's determination was subject to judicial review under the APA's "substantial evidence" standard, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(E). 401 U.S., at 414, 91 S.Ct., at 822. In rejecting that contention, we explained that the substantial-evidence test applies, in addition to circumstances not relevant here, only where "agency action is taken pursuant to the rulemaking provisions" of § 553. We held unequivocally that "the Secretary's decision to allow the expenditure of federal funds to build the highway through the park was plainly not an exercise of a rulemaking function." Id., at 414, 91 S.Ct., at 823.
Overton Park is authority here for the proposition that decisions to expend otherwise unrestricted funds are not, without more, subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of § 553. Although the Secretary's determination in Overton Park was subject to statutory criteria of " 'feasibility and prudence,' " id., at 405, 91 S.Ct., at 818, the generality of those standards underscores the administrative discretion inherent in the determination (reviewable though it was), to which the Service's discretionary authority to meet its obligations under the Snyder and Improvement Acts is comparable. Indeed, respondents seek to distinguish Overton Park principally on the ground that the Service's determination altered the eligibility criteria for Service assistance. See Brief for Respondents 24-25. But the record fails to support the distinction, there being no indication that the Service's decision to discontinue the Program (or, for that matter, to initiate it) did anything to modify eligibility standards for Service care, as distinct from affecting the availability of services in a particular geographic area. The Service's decision to reallocate funds presumably did mean that respondents would no longer receive certain services, but it did not alter the Service's criteria for providing assistance any more than the Service's initiation of the pilot project in 1978 altered the criteria for assistance to Indians in South Dakota.
By its terms, the Snyder Act applies to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency within the Department of the Interior. Under 42 U.S.C. 2001(a), however, the Bureau's authorities and responsibilities with respect to "the conservation of the health of Indians" have been transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services.
As of August 1985, the Program was providing services for 426 handicapped Indian children, and the Bureau continues to provide services for such children in discharging its responsibilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 89 Stat. 773, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Vigil v. Rhoades, 953 F.2d 1225, 1227 (CA10 1992).