Court Opinion

ID: 9481329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:15:31.057784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:14.398296
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Chief Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree we have jurisdiction to review Inyo County’s petition, and concur in part 3.A. and the first holding of part 3.B. I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority opinion.
Because 42 U.S.C. § 10101(31) does not provide any meaningful criteria for evaluating the Secretary’s decision to deny affected unit status, I conclude that the decision is unreviewable. Even assuming that the Secretary’s decision is subject to judicial review, I see no persuasive basis for the majority’s conclusion that the Secretary abused his discretion in denying affected unit status to Esmeralda and Inyo counties.
I
Judicial review of agency action may not be had when the statute is “drawn so that a court [has] no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (Chaney); Merrill Ditch-Liners, Inc. v. Pablo, 670 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir.1982) (Merrill Ditch-Liners). In such cases, the action is considered “committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see Chaney, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. at 1655.
This is true even where, as here, the court possesses jurisdiction; even an express conferral of jurisdiction will not fulfill the other conditions to judicial review, such as the necessity for a meaningful standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a) (judicial *1222review may not be had where “(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law” (emphasis added)); Board of Trade of Chicago v. SEC, 883 F.2d 525, 530 (7th Cir.1989) (Board of Trade) (no-action letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission unreviewable, despite proviso in 15 U.S.C. § 78y that “[a] person aggrieved by a final order of the Commission ... may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals”); Chernock v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 257 (3d Cir.1966) (fee award by the Social Security Administration unreviewable, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which states that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary ..., may obtain review of such decision”); see also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 607 n.*, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 2055 n.*, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988) (Webster) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (any right to review created by statute is subject to the conditions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), “unless specifically excluded”).
Nevertheless, the majority finds significance in the jurisdictional provision of sub-part A of the Act, which provides appellate courts with jurisdiction to review decisions of the Secretary. See maj. op. at 1218-19; 42 U.S.C. § 10139(a). Because one section within subpart A uses the term “affected unit,” see id. § 10136, the majority concludes that Congress intended the courts to review the denial of affected unit status. The majority contrasts section 10136 to another section of the Act, which expressly precludes judicial review of actions taken under it. See maj. op. at 1219; 42 U.S.C. § 10173(f).
There are two problems with the majority’s reasoning, both fatal to its conclusion of reviewability. First, as I have said, the questions of jurisdiction and a meaningful standard are separate. See Board of Trade, 883 F.2d at 530. Second, although the counties’ claim may arise under subpart A, thus supporting jurisdiction, the provision at issue here is not found in subpart A, but rather, is a definition contained in a preliminary section. See 42 U.S.C. § 10101(31) (defining “affected unit”). The term “affected unit” is used throughout the statute, both in sections where jurisdiction is present, see id. § 10136, and in those where it is not, see id. § 10173. Thus, the jurisdiction provision in subpart A does not provide a basis for inferring that Congress intended courts to review the Secretary’s preliminary decision to deny affected unit status.
The question here is not jurisdictional. Rather, it is whether we have a meaningful standard for review or whether this case is one in which the Secretary’s action is committed to his discretion by law. The majority concedes that the statute does not identify a meaningful standard. See maj. op. at 1218-19; 42 U.S.C. § 10101(31). Moreover, the Secretary has not promulgated regulations against which to measure his exercise of discretion. Cf. Webster, 486 U.S. at 602 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. at 2053 n. 7 (agency’s failure to follow own regulations can be challenged); Arnow v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 868 F.2d 223, 234 (7th Cir.) (agency regulations can provide sufficient standard for meaningful review), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 61, 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989). Finally, legislative history, for whatever its worth, strongly reinforces the conclusion that the Secretary’s discretion is absolute, as the majority concedes. See maj. op. at 1218-19; S.Rep. No. 152, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1987) (section 10101(31) gives the Secretary the “flexibility to designate a contiguous unit of local government as ‘affected’ when the Secretary feels that to do so will promote equity and further the process of facility siting and development” (emphasis added)).
The majority overcomes the absence of a meaningful standard by inventing one: “[A] judicially manageable standard by which to review the Secretary’s action readily presents itself.” See maj. op. at 1218-19. The majority cites no authority for this remarkable proposition, and I am unable to identify a “ready” justification for it. If the statute, regulations, and legislative history are utterly silent, by what authority does the majority speak on their behalf?
*1223Beyond its jurisdictional claim, the majority states only that “it is difficult to see how the purposes of the Act will be endangered by judicial review of the type of action at issue here.” Maj. op. at 1219. However, the majority overlooks the fact that affected unit status makes a county eligible for benefits and grants, and entitles the county to participate in some negotiations for compensation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10136, 10173, 10173a, 10243. Therefore, this case involves a controversy about funding, the type of dispute that is typically entrusted to the discretion of an agency. See International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Donovan, 746 F.2d 855, 862 (D.C.Cir.1984) (declining to review an administrative funding decision, stating that “[t]he distribution of public funds among competing social programs is an archetypically political task, involving the application of value judgments and predictions to innumerable alternatives”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825, 106 S.Ct. 81, 88 L.Ed.2d 66 (1985). As one court has pointed out, interference in this type of decision not only violates the APA, but also creates a separation of powers problem:
The existence of broad discretionary power in an agency often suggests that the challenged decision is the product of political, military, economic, or managerial choices that are not really susceptible to judicial review. Indeed, given the separation of powers between the judiciary and the other branches of government, it would appear unseemly in such circumstances for a court to substitute its judgment for that of an executive or agency official.
Local 2855 v. United States, 602 F.2d 574, 579 (3d Cir.1979); see also Board of Trade, 883 F.2d at 530 (“APA’s committed-to-agency discretion limitation ... is in large measure a restatement of the separation-of-powers problem.”).
Section 10101(31) was intended to grant the Secretary broad discretionary power to designate a county as an affected unit. See S.Rep. No. 152, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1987) (section 10101(31) gives the Secretary the “flexibility to designate a contiguous unit of local government as ‘affected’ when the Secretary feels that to do so will promote equity and further the process of facility siting and development” (emphasis added)). Similar statutory grants of broad discretion have led courts to conclude that an agency action is unreviewable. See Webster, 486 U.S. at 600, 108 S.Ct. at 2052 (director may take action that he “deems” appropriate); Board of Trade, 883 F.2d at 531 (“Commission may, in its discretion, make such investigations as it deems necessary”); Ruff v. Hodel, 770 F.2d 839, 842 (9th Cir.1985) (statute requires proof “satisfactory to the Secretary”); Gatter v. Nimmo, 672 F.2d 343, 345 (3d Cir.1982) (statute provides that administrator may, at the administrator’s option, take an action); Merrill Ditch-Liners, 670 F.2d at 141 (Secretary shall negotiate terms that he “deem[s] necessary”); Greater New York Hospital Association v. Mathews, 536 F.2d 494, 497 (2d Cir.1976) (statute provides that payment shall be made “at such time or times as the Secretary believes appropriate”). I see no basis for distinguishing these cases. I therefore believe that the Secretary’s denial of affected unit status is unreviewable.
II
Despite evidence that Congress gave the Secretary broad discretion to determine whether a contiguous county is affected, the majority concludes that the Secretary's denial of affected unit status to Inyo and Esmeralda counties was arbitrary and capricious. In reviewing the Secretary’s decision, the majority commits its second error. The majority fails to defer to the Secretary’s “complicated balancing ... of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise.” Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831, 105 S.Ct. at 1655. Instead, the majority substitutes its own judgment for that of the Secretary’s. Cf. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (iOverton Park) (“[T]he ultimate standard of review [of an agency’s decision] is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); Merrill Ditch-Liners, 670 F.2d *1224at 140 (review is precluded when plaintiffs complaint is primarily that “the agency made the wrong choice when making an informed judgment” (internal quotations omitted)).
The Secretary contends that it denied affected unit status to Inyo and Esmeralda Counties because the counties did not “demonstrate a sufficient level of potential impacts which would justify the allocation of limited resources to them.” In support of this conclusion, the Secretary cites several studies which show that a Yucca Mountain waste repository would have minimal impact on Inyo or Esmeralda. The majority rejects these studies, however, and instead concludes that the possibility of future impacts require finding Inyo and Esmeralda Counties affected.
For example, the majority argues that the possibility of groundwater contamination in Inyo justifies finding Inyo affected, despite the fact, admitted by the majority, that the Secretary’s studies show “a very low probability that Inyo County groundwater will be contaminated.” Maj. op. at 1220. The majority justifies disregarding the Secretary’s finding by claiming that affected unit status is necessary to insure that sufficient research is done to gauge potential impacts. Similarly, the majority states that Inyo’s proximity to Yucca Mountain and the possibility of radioactive releases that would contaminate Inyo require finding Inyo affected. Again the majority rejects the Secretary’s studies that show such releases are highly speculative by stating that “[ajffected unit status is meant to give a jurisdiction funds to determine whether any environment [sic] impacts will probably occur.” Id. at 1221. Finally,-the majority accepts Esmeralda’s and Inyo’s argument that the government may transport waste through their counties, and concludes that the counties “should have the opportunity to participate in preliminary planning stages [of this transportation].” Id. at 1220-1221.
Under the majority’s approach, it is difficult to see how the Secretary could ever deny affected unit status to a contiguous county. The government’s site characterization studies show no significant impact on Inyo or Esmeralda, and if the Yucca Mountain site is ever in operation, it will create few special problems for either county in terms of transportation, groundwater contamination or radioactive releases. However, by giving credit to the counties’ arguments about purely speculative and unsubstantiated future effects, the majority is able to ignore the government’s studies and conclusions. Under this reasoning, no matter how many studies support the Secretary’s determination that a county is not affected, every contiguous county will be entitled to affected unit status to determine for itself whether environmental impacts will ever occur. This result is inconsistent with the discretionary terms of the statute, and with the majority’s own conclusion that section 10101(31) was intended to give the Secretary the flexibility to determine, on an individual basis, whether a contiguous county is affected. Thus, I conclude the counties have failed to demonstrate that the Secretary abused his discretion.
Ill
I agree with the majority that we have jurisdiction to hear this case. I do not agree, however, that the decision of the Secretary is therefore reviewable. This court has “no meaningful standard against which to judge” the Secretary’s exercise of discretion. See- Chaney, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. at 1655. We have previously declined review where, as here, neither the statute nor the regulations suggest a standard upon which review might be based. Never before have we simply invented a standard, as the majority does here, to force the review of an unreviewable administrative determination.
Moreover, even assuming- that review is appropriate, I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the Secretary exceeded his discretionary authority. As the Supreme Court has admonished, discretionary administrative decisions are subject to narrow review. See Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. at 823. We are not permitted to substitute our judgment for *1225that of an administrator empowered to make a discretionary decision.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.