Heckler v Chaney and nonreviewability of agency inaction
🔍 Heckler v. Chaney and the Nonreviewability of Agency Inaction
🧾 Core Principle
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) established that a federal agency’s decision not to take enforcement action is generally presumed to be unreviewable by courts under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
⚖️ Key Holding in Heckler v. Chaney
Facts:
Death row inmates asked the FDA to take enforcement action against the use of certain drugs in lethal injections, claiming those drugs were unapproved for such use and violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
FDA refused to act, stating it had discretion in choosing its enforcement priorities.
Issue:
Can the FDA’s refusal to enforce be reviewed by courts?
Holding:
No. The Supreme Court held that the FDA’s refusal to act is presumed immune from judicial review, because such decisions are “committed to agency discretion by law” under Section 701(a)(2) of the APA.
Rationale:
Agencies have institutional competence and resource constraints that require discretion in enforcement.
Courts are ill-equipped to second-guess complex decisions involving prioritization, resource allocation, and policy judgment.
💡 Key Legal Rule from Heckler v. Chaney:
Agency inaction is presumed unreviewable unless Congress has clearly limited agency discretion or there’s a law to apply.
🧠 Why Is This Important?
Protects agency discretion in choosing how and when to enforce laws.
Limits judicial interference in executive branch priorities.
However, the presumption can be rebutted in limited cases—especially where:
Statutes impose a mandatory duty;
Agency action is not enforcement-related;
There is a pattern of arbitrary inaction or discrimination.
📚 Related and Subsequent Case Law
Below are six major cases that illustrate how Heckler v. Chaney has been interpreted, extended, or limited.
1. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), 542 U.S. 55 (2004)
Issue:
Could the BLM’s failure to protect public lands from off-road vehicle damage be judicially reviewed?
Holding:
No. The Court applied Heckler and ruled that agency inaction cannot be compelled unless the statute imposes a clear, non-discretionary duty.
Significance:
Reinforced Heckler.
Clarified that only discrete agency actions mandated by law can be compelled under APA §706(1).
Generalized policy failures or ongoing inaction are nonreviewable.
2. Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993)
Issue:
The Indian Health Service decided to terminate a program and reallocate funds. Was this decision reviewable?
Holding:
No. The Court extended Heckler and ruled that agency reallocations of funds (where discretion is allowed) are not subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of nonreviewability beyond enforcement decisions to resource allocations.
Affirmed that policy-driven, discretionary budget decisions are not second-guessed by courts.
3. Crowley Caribbean Transport, Inc. v. Peña, 37 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
Issue:
Maritime company challenged DOT’s failure to enforce a regulation against competitors.
Holding:
The D.C. Circuit held that while most enforcement decisions are nonreviewable under Heckler, an agency’s legal interpretation underlying its inaction may be reviewable.
Significance:
Introduced nuance: Courts may review legal interpretations even if they cannot review the enforcement inaction itself.
4. Oshkosh Stockyards v. Glickman, 122 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 1997)
Issue:
Plaintiff challenged USDA’s failure to regulate practices in livestock markets.
Holding:
The Ninth Circuit allowed review, finding that the agency had a clear statutory duty to act in specific circumstances.
Significance:
Demonstrated one of the exceptions to Heckler: when statutory language creates a mandatory duty, courts may review agency inaction.
5. Padula v. Webster, 822 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Issue:
Plaintiff alleged the FBI refused to hire her due to sexual orientation and challenged the FBI’s failure to investigate her complaint.
Holding:
The court ruled that the FBI’s decision not to investigate was nonreviewable under Heckler.
Significance:
Extended Heckler to cover discriminatory non-investigation, reinforcing how broad the nonreviewability doctrine can be—even in civil rights contexts.
6. Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker, 809 F.3d 664 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
Issue:
Plaintiffs challenged NOAA’s refusal to list a fish species as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Holding:
The court held that this kind of listing decision was reviewable, because the ESA imposed specific statutory duties and timelines.
Significance:
Limited Heckler by showing that where a statute provides clear standards and procedural mandates, agency inaction can be reviewed.
⚖️ Summary of Key Principles
| Rule | Source | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Presumption of nonreviewability | Heckler v. Chaney | Applies to most enforcement inaction |
| Mandatory duty exception | SUWA, Oshkosh | Reviewable if statute imposes a clear, nondiscretionary duty |
| Discretionary budget/resource decisions | Lincoln v. Vigil | Nonreviewable if discretion is allowed |
| Legal interpretation may be reviewable | Crowley | Even if enforcement action is not |
| Civil rights inaction can be nonreviewable | Padula | Reinforces breadth of Heckler |
| Statutory structure and deadlines matter | Anglers Conservation | Reviewability increases when statute provides standards |
🧠 Implications
Agencies have wide latitude to choose when, how, and whether to enforce laws.
Judicial review is narrow, focusing only on clear statutory mandates.
Advocates challenging inaction must show:
A discrete action the agency is legally required to take.
That the statute leaves no room for discretion.
Courts avoid entangling themselves in policy and enforcement priorities.
✅ Conclusion
Heckler v. Chaney created a durable presumption that agency enforcement inaction is not reviewable, shielding agencies from judicial micromanagement. But as shown through subsequent cases, this is not absolute. Courts have carved out exceptions, particularly when statutory mandates, legal interpretations, or discrimination are involved.
RELATED Blog
0 comments