Document: 509 U.S. 137 113 S.Ct. 2539 125 L.Ed.2d R. Gordon DARBY, et al., Petitioners,v.Henry G. CISNEROS, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, al. No. 91-2045. Argued March 22, 1993. Decided June 21, Syllabus * In a consolidated appeal from decisions by the Department Development (HUD) to initiate administrative sanctions against petitioners, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that petitioners should be debarred participating in federal programs for 18 months. Under HUD regulations, ALJ's determination "shall final unless . within 30 days receipt request decides as matter discretion review [ALJ's] finding. ." 24 CFR § 24.314(c). Neither party sought further review, but filed suit District Court, seeking injunction declaration were not accordance with law meaning Procedure Act (APA). Respondents moved dismiss complaint on ground forgoing option seek Secretary, had failed exhaust their remedies. The court denied motion granted summary judgment merits case. Court Appeals reversed, holding erred denying dismiss. Held: Federal courts do have authority require plaintiff available remedies before judicial under APA, where neither relevant statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion prerequisite review. language 10(c) APA is explicit "superior authority" only when "expressly required statute" or requires "by rule provides [administrative] action inoperative" pending Since National applicable regulations appeals, decision was "final" subject 10(c). lower free remedies, although doctrine continues apply cases governed APA. Nothing 10(c)'s legislative history supports contrary reading. Pp. ____. 957 F.2d 145, reversed remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts I, II, IV, Part III, which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. Steven D. Gordon, petitioners. James A. Feldman, respondents. Justice BLACKMUN Court.* 1 This case presents question whether (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 seq., At issue relationship between judicially created statutory requirements APA.1 2 Petitioner Darby2 self-employed South Carolina real estate developer who specializes development management multifamily rental projects. early 1980s, he began working Lonnie Garvin, Jr., mortgage banker, developed plan enable developers obtain single-family insurance respondent (HUD). Respondent (Secretary) authorized provide 203(b) Act, 48 Stat. 1252, amended, 12 1709(b).3 Although also projects 207 1713, greater degree oversight control over such makes it less attractive investors than option. 3 principal advantage Garvin's promised avoid HUD's "Rule Seven." prevented properties receiving if mortgagor already financial interests seven more similar same project subdivision. See 203.42(a) (1992).4 plan, person financing would use straw purchasers mortgage-insurance applicants. Once loans closed, transfer title back company. Because no single purchaser at time purchase own project, Rule Seven appeared violated. employees apparently assured Garvin his lawful thereby limitation Seven. 4 Darby obtained three separate multi-unit projects, and, through HUD. successfully rented units, combination low rents, falling interest rates, generally depressed market forced him into default 1988. became responsible payment $6.6 million claims. become suspicious far 1983. 1986, initiated audit done anything wrong misled personnel. Nevertheless, 1989, issued limited denial participation (LDP) prohibited one year any program administered Assistant Housing.5 Two months later, notified proposing debar them all procurement contracts nonprocurement transaction agency. 24.200 (1992). 6 Petitioners' appeals LDP proposed debarment consolidated, conducted hearing December 1989. judge "Initial Decision Order" April 1990, finding method used "a sham improperly circumvented App. Pet. Cert. 69a. ALJ concluded, however, most facts been disclosed local employees, lacked criminal intent, himself "genuinely cooperated try [to] work out dilemma foreclosure." Id., 88a. light these mitigating factors, indefinite punitive serve legitimate purpose;6 good cause existed, period months.7 90a. 7 8 "[t]he officer's shall unless, pursuant part 26, Secretary's designee, officer. day deciding may extended upon written notice extension designee. Any writing 15 determination." 24.314(c) 9 respondents Order." 10 On May 31, United States Carolina. They imposed purposes punishment, violation therefore "not law" 10(e)(B)(1) 706(2)(A). 11 respondents' dismiss, reasoning remedy inadequate resort futile. 29a. subsequent opinion, petitioners' judgment, concluding "imposition this encroached too heavily side line, those reasons abuse law." 19a. Fourth Circuit reversed. v. Kemp, 145 It recognized expressly prior filing suit. because there evidence suggest futile abused indefinitely extending limitations 13 petition rehearing suggestion en banc. 93a. order resolve tension well settle perceived conflict among Courts Appeals,8 we certiorari. 506 ----, 404, 121 330 II 14 Section bears caption "Actions reviewable." its first two sentences "final other adequate court," "preliminary, procedural, intermediate action." last sentence reads: "Except otherwise statute, section has presented determined application declaratory order, form reconsideration [see n. 1, supra ], or, meanwhile inoperative, superior authority." 704. Petitioners argue provision means litigant need rule. According since contains provision, are discretion. 16 contend concerned solely timing, is, actions "final," Congress intention interfere courts' ability impose conditions timing exercise jurisdiction actions. concede claim 10(c), pursue However, even though nothing precludes claim, remain appropriate requirements.9 17 We conceptually distinct finality: "[T]he finality requirement initial decisionmaker arrived definitive position inflicts actual, concrete injury; refers procedures injured adverse found unlawful inappropriate." Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n Hamilton Bank, 473 172, 193, 105 3108, 3119, 87 126 (1985). 19 Whether depends, least part, provided otherwise, "of 'paramount importance' inquiry congressional intent," McCarthy Madigan, 503 112 1081, 1086, 117 291 (1992), quoting Patsy Board Regents Florida, 457 496, 501, 102 2557, 2559, 73 172 (1982). must consider providing becomes of" limits additional 20 perhaps surprising taken 45 years passage definitively address question. Professor Davis noted 1958 almost completely ignored opinions, see K. Davis, Treatise 20.08, p. 101 (1958); reiterated observation 25 noting "provision hundreds customarily overlooked." 26.12, pp. 468-469 (2d ed. 1983). Only handful opinions considered effect general doctrine. 8, supra. 21 occasion, contexts. For example, ICC Locomotive Engineers, 482 270, 107 2360, 96 222 (1987), plain "whether application" reconsideration, could read regardless filed. noted, "has long construed merely relieve parties petitioning (unless, course, so statute—see, e.g., §§ 717r, 3416(a)), prevent petitions actually rendering orders nonfinal" (emphasis original). 284-285, S.Ct., 2368-2369. 22 Bowen Massachusetts, 487 879, 108 2722, 749 (1988), relief Claims "adequate court" preclude "although primary thrust [§ ] codify requirement," U.S., 903, 2736. intended simply duplicating previously established special 23 While some dicta might claimed lend support interpretation text leaves little doubt correct. 10(a) "[a] suffering legal action, adversely affected aggrieved entitled thereof." 702 added). right establishes available. When exhausted prescribed rule, section" "subject review" sentence. apply, appropriate, prudential doctrines administration limit scope very terms, availability clearly mandates. explicitly "any reconsideration" "an making unambiguous know precisely what steps If able beyond agency, make sense. To adopt reading transform designed " 'remove obstacles action,' 904, 2737, Shaughnessy Pedreiro, 349 48, 51, 75 591, 593, 99 L.Ed. 868 (1955), trap unwary litigants. intra-agency mandated either rule; inconsistent litigants optional well. III Recourse unnecessary text. briefly both sides spent much arguing about implications. report Senate Judiciary Committee explained "designed implement provisions 8(a)." 8(a), now codified, 557(b), provides, made officer "becomes without proceedings to, of, rule." 26 permit examiner case, agency's absence appeal, examiner's inoperative until determines matter. reason subsection permits that, satisfied subordinate officer, (the being inoperative) resorting courts. 'superior authority' repetitious process recourse. There fundamental inconsistency requiring continue 'exhausting' processes after become, while remains, effective." S.Rep.No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (1945); Act: Legislative History 1944-46, S.Doc. 248, 2d 213 (hereinafter Leg.Hist.). statement appended letter dated October 19, 1945, Committee, Attorney General Tom C. Clark set forth understanding 10(c): 28 "This states (subject 10(a)) acts reviewable 10. state existing law. clear applied (1) (2) officers appealed regarded review." 44, Leg.Hist. 230.10 29 place great weight General's "is That law, according respondents, "plainly permitted remedies." Brief 19-20. cannot agree categorical pronouncement. With motions rehearing, trend pre-APA opposite direction. Vandalia Co. Public Service Comm'n, 242 255, 37 93, 61 276 (1916), invoked "general rule" "one rulings tribunal complain Constitution violated availed rectification rulings." 261, 95. Railroad Commission grant rehearing; did sought. "since record shows error associates accorded modification, abandoned it, said point." Ibid. Prendergast New York Telephone Co., 262 43, 43 466, 468, 67 853 (1923), mentioning stated: 31 "It necessary Company court. interested sufficient therefor appear. As does granting entirely Commission, condition precedent bringing enjoin enforcement order." 32 Accord, Banton Belt Line 268 413, 416-417, 534, 535-536, 69 1020 (1925) ("No commission None suit"). 33 Shortly adopted Levers Anderson, 326 219, 66 72, 90 (1945), held Supervisor Alcohol Tax Unit Bureau Internal Revenue "may hear certain liquor permits, "persuades us 'may' must, Supervisors oral argument." 223, 74 Despite fact stay "the like normal, formal type Congress." 224, 74. 34 enactment statute. argue, governing significantly different interpret it. 23. rely Sing Tuck, 194 161, 621, 917 (1904), whether, Inspector Immigration Commerce Labor available.11 "points mode procedure followed can courts," id., 167, go preliminary sifting statutes," 170, 623. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Risty, 567, 574-575, 396, 399-400, 72 703 (1928).12 35 history, argument nonetheless unreviewable taken. concerning stand simple proposition taken, yet "final." hardly surprising, given few, any, agencies Developments—1971, 1972 Duke L.J. 115, 295, ("[P]rior ordinarily binding determinations level below board commission, expected affect number instances"). 36 purpose final. because, appeal. 557(b). Agencies decision, first, adopting available, second, "inoperative" Otherwise, purport find view 1976 amendments After eliminating defense sovereign immunity cases, provided: "Nothing herein affects power duty deny equitable ground," Pub.L. 94-574, 2721 (1976) (codified 702). proviso ensure refuse S.Rep. 94-996, (among remained unaffected "failure remedies").13 38 Putting obvious problems relying post-enactment see, Texas, 507 4, 1631, 1635, 123 245 (1993) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. LTV Corp., 496 633, 650, 110 2668, 2677, 579 (1990), added "[a]ll unchanged." 94-966, 11. elimination discussed, exist extent Therefore, our IV 39 just Term non-APA 40 "appropriate deference Congress' prescribe basic procedural scheme heard fashioning principles manner consistent intent scheme." 41 Appropriate recognition brought effectively codified Of But applies, 42 remanded opinion. ordered. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SCALIA, THOMAS join syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. 704, provides: "Agency A preliminary, ruling directly action. Except note Code reconsiderations," word plural. version enacted, uses singular "reconsideration." ch. 60 243 (1946). quote enacted Statutes Large. Stephan 319 423, 426, 63 1135, 1136, 1490 (1943) ("[T]he prevail Large inconsistent"). include affiliate companies: Company; Realty Management Company, Inc.; MD Investment; Parkbrook Acres Associates; Developers. facilitate home ownership owner-occupants, 1980s conditions. Private investor-owners longer eligible insurance. Reform 143(b), 103 2036. Prior August 1955, Eleven. 203.42 (1982), 56 Fed.Reg. 27692 (1991). An recipient "program," includes "receipt benefit assistance grants contractual arrangements; benefits loan guarantees insurance; awards contracts, notwithstanding quid pro quo [HUD] gives return." 24.710(a)(2) "[d]ebarment suspension serious public Government's protection punishment." 24.115(b) calculated 18-month date imposed. 1990. Circuit's appears Montgomery Rumsfeld, 572 250, 253-254 (CA9 1978), Missouri Bowen, 813 864 (CA8 1987), considerable Consolidated Mines Smelting 455 432, 439-440 1971); England Coalition Nuclear Pollution Regulatory 582 87, (CA1 1978); Gulf Oil Dept. Energy, 214 U.S.App.D.C. 119, 131, 73, 663 296, 308, (1981). argued remains Secretary. 43304 (1983). alone insufficient imposes requirement. 31. Manual 1947, deference, Steadman SEC, 450 91, 103, 999, 1008, (1981); Vermont Yankee Power Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 519, 546, 98 1197, 1212, 55 460 (1978), Justice's "embodies Agency finally operative decisive (1947). H.R.Rep. 1980, 55, (1946); 289, (describing take timely time-honored remedies"). 18, 1894, 390, "In every alien excluded admission treaty hereafter made, immigration customs officers, alien, final, [Commerce Labor]." American Bar Association 1940, Dean Stason University Michigan School summarized appeals: event setting up creates appellate tribunals, invariably recourse agencies." Stason, Timing Judicial Redress Erroneous Action, Minn. L.Rev. 560, 570 (1941); 469 1983) ("The pre-1946 higher authorities review"). then-Assistant Scalia's Chairman Subcommittee Practice wrote supported amendment large many (or most) disposed basis decided way grounds failure 25-26 (1976). Recommendations Reports Conference (1968-1970) (urging eventually incorporated verbatim abolition will result undue interference governmental operations flood burdensome litigation").

Category: 8