Opinion ID: 555040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Review of Compliance with the Guidelines

Text: 51 Plaintiffs also allege that even if the NSC's guidelines are found to be reasonable, some NSC officials and staff are not complying with the guidelines and the APA authorizes the district court to entertain their challenges and grant relief. Here we part company with the plaintiffs and the district court. We believe that the FRA contains a prescribed method of action in such cases: it requires the agency head, in the first instance, and then the Archivist to request that the Attorney General initiate an action to prevent the destruction of documents, thereby precluding private litigants from suing directly to enjoin agency actions in contravention of agency guidelines. 52 In reaching this result, we rely on the rationale of the Supreme Court in Kissinger. In rejecting the claim that the FRA contained an implied right of action for private litigants to prevent the removal of records, the Court stated that the Federal Records Act establishes only one remedy for the improper removal of a 'record' from the agency: the agency head, in conjunction with the Archivist, is required to request the Attorney General to initiate an action to recover records unlawfully removed from the agency. Kissinger, 445 U.S. at 148, 100 S.Ct. at 967; see also 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3106. After briefly analyzing the legislative history of the FRA, the Court concluded that Congress expressly recognized the need for devising adequate statutory safeguards against the unauthorized removal of agency records, and opted in favor of a system of administrative standards and enforcement. Id. at 149, 100 S.Ct. at 968. 53 The 1984 amendments to the FRA support the reasoning of Kissinger and indicate that Congress again decided to rely on administrative enforcement, rather than judicial review at the behest of private litigants, to prevent the destruction or removal of records. After the Kissinger case, Congress recognized that the FRA administrative enforcement mechanism needed to be strengthened [b]ecause of the frequency of incidents of removal or destruction of records in recent years. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 98-1124 at 28, 1984 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS at 3903. Therefore, Congress enhanced the Archivist's authority to prevent the unlawful removal or destruction of records by requiring the Archivist to notify Congress and independently request that the Attorney General initiate an action if the agency head refused to do so. See id. at 27, 1984 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS at 3902; 44 U.S.C. Sec. 2905(a). 54 Thus the conferees, mindful of the protracted private litigation involved in the Kissinger case, chose to strengthen the administrative enforcement mechanism rather than explicitly sanctioning litigation at the behest of private citizens. See H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 98-1124 at 28, 1984 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS at 3903. We will not second-guess that decision. Because it would clearly contravene this system of administrative enforcement to authorize private litigants to invoke federal courts to prevent an agency official from improperly destroying or removing records, we hold that the FRA precludes judicial review of such actions. Cf. Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 349, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 2455, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984) (When a statute provides a detailed mechanism for judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of particular persons, judicial review of those issues at the behest of other persons may be found to be impliedly precluded.). 9 55 We do conclude, however, that it would not be inconsistent with Kissinger or the FRA to permit judicial review of the agency head's or Archivist's refusal to seek the initiation of an enforcement action by the Attorney General. 10 Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended to preclude judicial review of either the agency head's or the Archivist's failure to take enforcement action. Indeed, judicial review of the agency head's and Archivist's failure to take enforcement action reinforces the FRA scheme by ensuring that the administrative enforcement and congressional oversight provisions will operate as Congress intended. Unless the Archivist notifies the agency head (and, if necessary, Congress) and requests the Attorney General to initiate legal action, the administrative enforcement and congressional oversight provisions will not be triggered, and there will be no effective way to prevent the destruction or removal of records. Thus, if the agency head or Archivist does nothing while an agency official destroys or removes records in contravention of agency guidelines and directives, private litigants may bring suit to require the agency head and Archivist to fulfill their statutory duty to notify Congress and ask the Attorney General to initiate legal action.
56 Finally, we hold that the decision to seek the initiation of an enforcement action to prevent the destruction or removal of records is not committed by law to the agency head's or Archivist's discretion. 11 Although there is a presumption that an agency's decision not to take enforcement action is immune from judicial review under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2), Congress may limit an agency's exercise of enforcement power ... [and overcome the presumption] by setting substantive priorities, or by otherwise circumscribing an agency's power to discriminate among issues or cases it will pursue. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 833, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). Because the FRA enforcement provisions leave no discretion to determine which cases to pursue, the agency head's and Archivist's enforcement decisions are not committed to agency discretion by law. 57 In contrast to a statute that merely authorizes an agency to take enforcement action as it deems necessary, the FRA requires the agency head and Archivist to take enforcement action. Cf. Heckler, 470 U.S. at 835, 105 S.Ct. at 1657 (FDA's decision not to take enforcement action is unreviewable under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2) because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's enforcement provision provides only that '[t]he Secretary is authorized to conduct examinations and investigations ... ' ) (emphasis in original). Once the Archivist becomes aware of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records, the Archivist shall notify the head of [the] Federal agency involved and assist the head of the agency in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 2905(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, once the agency head becomes aware of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful, removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records, the agency head shall notify the Archivist and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General. Id. Sec. 3106 (emphasis added). 12 If, however, the agency head does not initiate an enforcement action within a reasonable period of time, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made. Id. (emphasis added). On the basis of such clear statutory language mandating that the agency head and Archivist seek redress for the unlawful removal or destruction of records, we hold that the agency head's and Archivist's enforcement actions are subject to judicial review. 58