Opinion ID: 3065030
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: compel agency action unlawfully withheld or

Text: unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [or] (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity . . . . 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)-(2); see also Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 143-47 (1993) (discussing the provisions and structure of the judicial-review sections of the APA). Like the “administrative structure and procedures of the Social Security system” at issue in Chilicky, the APA is vast in scope and affects “virtually every American.” 487 U.S. at 424. Indeed, the APA is, by its nature, broader in scope than the Social Security system: absent some statutory or other exception, the APA’s “comprehensive provisions” provide the backup or default remedies for all interactions between individuals and all federal agencies, not just the Social Security Administration. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704; Webster, 486 U.S. at 599. The fact that APA’s procedures are available where no other adequate alternative remedy exists further indicates Congress’s intent that courts should not devise additional, judicially crafted default remedies. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. The APA does not provide for monetary damages, though it does allow “specific relief,” including the payment of WESTERN RADIO SERVICES v. USFS 11499 money to which a plaintiff is entitled. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 895 (1988). Nor does the APA allow claims against individuals or provide a right to a trial by jury. Both the Supreme Court and this court have concluded, however, that remedial schemes lacking such features may be adequate alternatives, provided that the absence of such procedural protections was not inadvertent on the part of Congress. See Chilicky, 487 U.S. at 424-25; Libas Ltd. v. Carillo, 329 F.3d 1128, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that no Bivens remedy was available where a statutory scheme allowed importers to challenge customs agents’ erroneous assessments of import duties but did not provide for consequential damages or a right of action against the individual agents); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 564-65 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that the Contract Dispute Act provided an adequate alternative remedy to a Bivens action, even though it did not provide for damages claims against individual officers or the right to a jury trial). [8] In sum, the design of the APA raises the inference that Congress “expected the Judiciary to stay its Bivens hand” and provides “a convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages,” Wilkie, 551 U.S. at 550, 554, notwithstanding the unavailability of money damages against individual officers or the right to a jury trial. With respect to agency action and inaction, we conclude that Congress “has considered the universe of harms that could be committed in the program’s administration and has provided what Congress believes to be adequate remedies.” Adams, 355 F.3d at 1185. We therefore conclude that the APA leaves no room for Bivens claims based on agency action or inaction.