Court Opinion

ID: 9478791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:58:16.175863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:37.284781
License: Public Domain

LEAVY, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
Although I agree with the majority that the district court’s decision should stand, I write separately because I am convinced that the district court correctly dismissed Haire’s action for lack of jurisdiction, given the language of the EAA, 50 U.S.C.App. § 2412(c) and (d), saying that orders of the secretary “shall be final and not subject to judicial review.”
I disagree with the majority’s view that the EAJA’s jurisdictional requirement was met under 50 U.S.C.App. § 2410(f). Civil actions for recovery of penalties under § 2410(f) are available only “in the discretion of the head or agency concerned,” and must be brought in the name of the United States. The decision to seek or not seek enforcement is left to the secretary of state, treasury, agriculture, commerce, labor, and maybe even other department heads. Only if the government prevails at the administrative level can the enforcement action be brought.
It is only the government that can proceed under § 2410(f) and then only if a penalty is imposed at the administrative level.
Because Haire prevailed over the government at the administrative level, because the government imposed no penalty under § 2410(f) and because Haire, not the government, brought the present action, § 2410(f) is inapplicable to confer jurisdiction on the district court.
The entire act is designed to regulate exports to controlled countries, to accommodate national security, to advance foreign policy to deal with short supply. In that context, it makes sense to give department heads the option of whether to proceed with penalty enforcements under § 2410(f) or to avoid judicial scrutiny on issues affecting foreign relations. The concept that an administrative head can consent to judicial review only by pursuit of a penalty action is consistent with the express renunciation of judicial review in § 2412(c) and (d). I would simply affirm.