Opinion ID: 313654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reviewability-agency discretion

Text: 6 The defendants argue that the Secretary of Agriculture has broad discretion to decide whether to enter into a land exchange, and that all aspects of such exchanges are committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable under Administrative Procedure Act Sec. 10 (a), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a). The second proposition, however, by no means follows from the first. 7 Although the basic decision whether or not to enter into an exchange may be nonreviewable, Lewis v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 992, 91 S.Ct. 451, 27 L.Ed. 2d 440 (1971), judicial review may be available on specific questions. East Oakland-Fruitvale Planning Council v. Rumsfeld, 471 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1972); Rockbridge v. Lincoln, 449 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1971). See Saferstein, Nonreviewability: A Functional Analysis of Committed to Agency Discretion, 82 Harv. L.Rev. 367 (1968). 8 In this case NFPG contends that the agency did not comply with specific statutory limitations on its authority. There is clearly law to apply on the issues raised, and thus the allegations are reviewable. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).