Judicial review of agency inaction
Judicial Review of Agency Inaction
What is Agency Inaction?
Agency inaction occurs when an administrative agency fails or refuses to take a legally required action—for example, not issuing a rule, decision, or enforcement action within a reasonable time. This can cause harm or deny relief to affected parties.
What is Judicial Review of Agency Inaction?
Judicial review of agency inaction allows courts to compel agencies to act when they unlawfully delay or refuse to perform their mandated duties.
Why is it important?
Ensures agencies do not shirk statutory responsibilities.
Prevents unreasonable delay harming individuals or public interests.
Maintains the balance of powers by holding agencies accountable.
Legal Framework for Judicial Review of Agency Inaction
APA § 706(1) allows courts to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.
Agencies must perform non-discretionary duties or act within a reasonable time.
Courts assess if the agency action is “legally required”.
Courts avoid interfering with discretionary decisions where agency has broad authority.
🔍 Key Case Laws on Judicial Review of Agency Inaction
1. Heckler v. Chaney (1985)
Citation: 470 U.S. 821
Facts:
Death row inmates petitioned FDA to ban execution drugs. FDA declined enforcement action without explanation.
Issue:
Is FDA’s decision not to take enforcement action subject to judicial review?
Held:
No. The Court ruled that agency refusals to enforce are generally presumptively unreviewable, unless there is a clear statutory mandate to act.
Significance:
Established the presumption of agency discretion in non-action.
Agency inaction is reviewable only when statute mandates action.
2. Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC (TRAC) (1984)
Citation: 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
The FCC delayed acting on a petition to regulate pay telephone access for disabled individuals.
Issue:
Should the court compel FCC to act?
Held:
The court provided a six-factor test to determine when agency delay is unreasonable and reviewable.
Factors include:
The time agency has taken.
The agency’s reason for delay.
The interests affected by delay.
The impact of court intervention.
Significance:
Established standards for assessing unreasonable delay.
Courts can compel agencies to act if delay is unjustified.
3. Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Sullivan (1989)
Citation: 988 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
Plaintiffs sued to compel HHS to act on a Medicaid waiver application.
Issue:
Is judicial intervention appropriate to compel agency action?
Held:
Yes. Courts may compel agency action when it is unreasonably delayed and required by law.
Significance:
Reinforced TRAC factors.
Emphasized judicial role in preventing agency foot-dragging.
4. Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission (1994)
Citation: 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
Plaintiffs sought to compel FEC to act on enforcement complaints regarding campaign finance.
Issue:
Is agency inaction reviewable where enforcement is statutorily mandated?
Held:
Yes. Courts may review agency failure to act if the statute clearly mandates action.
Significance:
Clarified scope of review when statutory duties are explicit.
Agencies cannot ignore mandatory responsibilities.
5. In re Barr Laboratories, Inc. (1995)
Citation: 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
FDA delayed review of a generic drug application.
Issue:
Can courts compel FDA to act?
Held:
Yes, where delays are unreasonable and harm is substantial.
Significance:
Confirmed courts can order agencies to meet statutory deadlines.
Highlighted impact of delay on public health.
6. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (2007)
Citation: 606 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (N.D. Cal.)
Facts:
NOAA Fisheries delayed action on fishing regulations.
Issue:
Should the court compel agency action?
Held:
Yes, delay was unreasonable; court ordered agency to proceed.
Significance:
Illustrates modern application of TRAC standards.
Courts act as watchdogs against agency inertia.
✅ Summary:
Judicial review of agency inaction balances agency discretion and legal mandates.
Courts presume agencies have discretion not to act unless statute requires otherwise (Heckler v. Chaney).
Courts assess delay using TRAC factors to determine if action should be compelled.
Judicial intervention is appropriate when agency unreasonably delays legally required action.
The doctrine safeguards against agency neglect and protects public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments