470 U.S. 821 (1985), 83-1878, Heckler v. Chaney

Docket NºNo. 83-1878
Citation470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714, 53 U.S.L.W. 4385
Party NameHeckler v. Chaney
Case DateMarch 20, 1985
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 821

470 U.S. 821 (1985)

105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714, 53 U.S.L.W. 4385

Heckler

v.

Chaney

No. 83-1878

United States Supreme Court

March 20, 1985

Argued December 3, 1984

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Respondent prison inmates were convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that use of the drugs for such a purpose violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent those violations. The FDA refused the request. Respondents then brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services, making the same claim and seeking the same enforcement actions. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, holding that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumscribe the FDA's enforcement discretion or to make it reviewable. The Court of Appeals reversed. Noting that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) only precludes judicial review of federal agency action when it is precluded by statute, 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), or "committed to agency discretion by law," § 701(a)(2), the court held that § 701(a)(2)'s exception applies only where the substantive statute leaves the courts with "no law to apply," that here there was "law to apply," that therefore the FDA's refusal to take enforcement action was reviewable, and that, moreover, such refusal was an abuse of discretion.

Held: The FDA's decision not to take the enforcement actions requested by respondents was not subject to review under the APA. Pp. 827-838.

(a) Under § 701(a)(2), judicial review of an administrative agency's decision is not to be had if the statute in question is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. In such a case, the statute ("law") can be taken to have "committed" the decisionmaking to the agency's judgment absolutely. An agency's decision not to take enforcement action is presumed immune from judicial review under § 701(a)(2). Such a decision has traditionally been "committed to agency discretion," and it does not appear that Congress, in enacting the APA, intended to alter that tradition. Accordingly, such a decision is unreviewable unless Congress has [105 S.Ct. 1651] indicated an intent to circumscribe agency enforcement

Page 822

discretion, and has provided meaningful standards for defining the limits of that discretion. Pp. 827-835.

(b) The presumption that agency decisions not to institute enforcement proceedings are unreviewable under § 701(a)(2) is not overcome by the enforcement provisions of the FDCA. Those provisions commit complete discretion to the Secretary to decide how and when they should be exercised. The FDCA's prohibition of "misbranding" of drugs and introduction of "new drugs," absent agency approval, does not supply this Court with "law to apply." Nor can the FDA's "policy statement" indicating that the agency considered itself "obligated" to take certain investigative actions be plausibly read to override the agency's rule expressly stating that the FDA Commissioner shall object to judicial review of a decision to recommend or not to recommend civil or criminal enforcement action. And the section of the FDCA providing that the Secretary need not report for prosecution minor violations of the Act does not give rise to the negative implication that the Secretary is required to investigate purported, "major" violations of the Act. Pp. 835-837.

231 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 718 F.2d 1174, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 838. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 840.

Page 823

REHNQUIST, J., lead opinion

JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency to exercise its "discretion" not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (APA). Respondents are several prison inmates convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that, under the circumstances, the use of these drugs for capital punishment violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent these violations. The FDA refused their request. We review here a decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held the FDA's refusal to take enforcement actions both reviewable and an abuse of discretion, and remanded the case with directions that the agency be required "to fulfill its statutory function." 231 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 153, 718 F.2d 1174, 1191 (1983).

I

Respondents have been sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs under the laws of the States of Oklahoma and Texas. Those States, and several others, have recently adopted this method for carrying out the capital sentence. Respondents first petitioned the FDA, claiming that the drugs used by the States for this purpose, although approved by the FDA for the medical purposes stated on their labels, were not approved for use in human executions. They alleged that the drugs had not been tested for the purpose for which they were to be used, and that, given that the drugs would likely be administered by untrained personnel, it was also likely that the drugs would not induce the quick and painless death intended. They urged that use of these drugs for human execution was the "unapproved use of an approved drug," and

Page 824

constituted a violation of the Act's prohibitions against "misbranding."1 They also suggested that the FDCA's requirements for approval of "new drugs" applied, since these drugs were now being used for a new [105 S.Ct. 1652] purpose. Accordingly, respondents claimed that the FDA was required to approve the drugs as "safe and effective" for human execution before they could be distributed in interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. § 355. They therefore requested the FDA to take various investigatory and enforcement actions to prevent these perceived violations; they requested the FDA to affix warnings to the labels of all the drugs stating that they were unapproved and unsafe for human execution, to send statements to the drug manufacturers and prison administrators stating that the drugs should not be so used, and to adopt procedures for seizing the drugs from state prisons and to recommend the prosecution of all those in the chain of distribution who knowingly distribute or purchase the drugs with intent to use them for human execution.

The FDA Commissioner responded, refusing to take the requested actions. The Commissioner first detailed his disagreement with respondents' understanding of the scope of FDA jurisdiction over the unapproved use of approved drugs for human execution, concluding that FDA jurisdiction in the area was generally unclear, but in any event should not be exercised to interfere with this particular aspect of state criminal justice systems. He went on to state:

Were FDA clearly to have jurisdiction in the area, moreover, we believe we would be authorized to decline to exercise it under our inherent discretion to decline to pursue certain enforcement matters. The unapproved use of approved drugs is an area in which the case law is far from uniform. Generally, enforcement proceedings in this area are initiated only when there is a serious

Page 825

danger to the public health or a blatant scheme to defraud. We cannot conclude that those dangers are present under State lethal injection laws, which are duly authorized statutory enactments in furtherance of proper State functions. . . .

Respondents then filed the instant suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the same violations of the FDCA and asking that the FDA be required to take the same enforcement actions requested in the prior petition.2 Jurisdiction was grounded in the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and review of the agency action was sought under the judicial review provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701706. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner. It began with the proposition that

decisions of executive departments and agencies to refrain from instituting investigative and enforcement proceedings are essentially unreviewable by the courts.

Chaney v. Schweiker, Civ. No. 81-2265 (DC, Aug. 30, 1982), App. to Pet. for Cert. 74a (emphasis in original). The court then cited case law stating that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumscribe the FDA's enforcement discretion or to make it reviewable.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The majority began by discussing the FDA's jurisdiction over the unapproved use of approved drugs for human execution, and concluded that the FDA did have jurisdiction over such a use. The court then addressed the Government's assertion of unreviewable discretion

Page 826

to refuse enforcement action. It first discussed this Court's opinions which have held that there is a general presumption that all agency decisions are reviewable under the APA, at least to assess whether the actions were [105 S.Ct. 1653] "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 139-141 (1967); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). It noted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2074 practice notes
  • Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 28, 2006
    • December 21, 2006
    ...review if ``agency action is committed to agency discretion by law''). See also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985) (recognizing the exception to the presumption of agency reviewability in 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2)); Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633 (D.C......
  • Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 13, 2018
    • December 13, 2018
    ...Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law . . .'') (emphasis added); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); see also 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1) (authorizing the Director of the Bureau to ``issue . . . guidance as may be necessary or appropr......
  • 233 F.Supp.2d 890 (N.D.Ohio 2002), 1 02 CV 1460, City of Olmstead Falls v. United States E.P.A.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Northern District of Ohio
    • October 25, 2002
    ...As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review these decisions. Presumption of Unreviewability In Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), plaintiffs brought an action against the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking to compe......
  • 268 F.Supp.2d 1255 (D.Or. 2003), CV-01-510, Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States E.P.A.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit District of Oregon
    • March 31, 2003
    ...its discretion under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B) could be subject to a proper challenge under the APA.") (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 829-30, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); N.A.A.C.P. v. Sec'y of Housing and Urban Dev., 817 F.2d 149, 160 (1st Cir.1987); Robbins v. Rea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1874 cases
  • 233 F.Supp.2d 890 (N.D.Ohio 2002), 1 02 CV 1460, City of Olmstead Falls v. United States E.P.A.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Northern District of Ohio
    • October 25, 2002
    ...As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review these decisions. Presumption of Unreviewability In Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), plaintiffs brought an action against the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking to compe......
  • 268 F.Supp.2d 1255 (D.Or. 2003), CV-01-510, Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States E.P.A.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit District of Oregon
    • March 31, 2003
    ...its discretion under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B) could be subject to a proper challenge under the APA.") (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 829-30, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); N.A.A.C.P. v. Sec'y of Housing and Urban Dev., 817 F.2d 149, 160 (1st Cir.1987); Robbins v. Rea......
  • 38 F.Supp.2d 1219 (E.D.Wash. 1999), CS-98-265, United States v. 1020 Electronic Gambling Machines
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Eastern District of Washington
    • January 19, 1999
    ...tribe had failed to establish either that the Attorney General's decision was reviewable, id. at 1481-82 (discussing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)), or that the government owed the tribe a specific trust duty. Id. at 1482-83. The circuit court found ......
  • 493 F.Supp.2d 148 (D.Mass. 2007), Civ. A. 07cv10231, Tang v. Chertoff
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit District of Massachusetts
    • June 26, 2007
    ...here because there is "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, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). First, Heckler is inapposite here. In Heckler, death row inmates sought to compel the Food and Dr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 firm's commentaries
  • False Claims Act Circuit Splits—FCA Issues That May Soon Reach The Supreme Court Or Lead To Congressional Amendment
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 13, 2018
    ...conspired to defraud the government of $6,169.20 using falsified time sheets and leave sheets. 16 Id. at 253 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 833 (1985)). Although, in Swift, the court created this rule in the context of a case where the defendants had not been served the complaint......
  • Supreme Court Decision re: Overtime Exemption
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 18, 2012
    ...host of factors, some bearing no relation to the agency’s views regarding whether a violation has occurred. See, e.g., Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 831 (1985) (noting that “an agency decision not —————— 16It appears that the DOL only once directly opined on the exempt status of detaile......
  • What To Do With Un-Preempted Fraud On The FDA Claims
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • February 18, 2010
    ...statutory and regulatory framework under which the FDA pursues difficult (and often competing) objectives.” Id.; accord Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (FDCA frees the FDA to pursue whatever remedies the FDA thinks best fit the violation). These propositions are not limited to a......
  • Promoting the False Claims Act By Dismissing Meritless Qui Tam Actions
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • September 25, 2014
    ...show that dismissal is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest). (5) Swift, 318 F.3d at 253 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)). (6) See David Engstrom, Public Regulation of Private Enforcement: Empirical Analysis of DOJ Oversight of Qui Tam Litigation Und......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
143 books & journal articles
  • Federal Food and Drug Act violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 35 Nbr. 3, March 1998
    • March 22, 1998
    ...988 (8th Cit. 1969) (finding that consent is ordinarily required in warrantless searches by FDA inspectors). (89.) See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) (stating that refusal to investigate use of lethal drugs on prisoners sentenced to death was within FDA's discretionary power an......
  • U.S. Court of International Trade decisions in 2008 in appeals of determinations of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of International Law Vol. 41 Nbr. 1, September 2009
    • September 22, 2009
    ...F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2008) (Court No. 06-00134). (211.) Commission's Motion to Dismiss at 13-14 (citing Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 834-35 (1985)), Consol. Fibers v. United States (Consol. Fibers I), 465 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (No. 06-000134). (212.) Commi......
  • The judicial perspective in the administrative state: reconciling modern doctrines of deference with the judiciary's structural role.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 53 Nbr. 1, October 2000
    • October 1, 2000
    ...political character, and to his own conscience."). The most prominent modern case standing for this proposition is Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). The Heckler v. Chaney opinion explained: "This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's deci......
  • Null preemption.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 85 Nbr. 3, March 2010
    • March 1, 2010
    ...See id. at 524-25. (266) See id. at 514 n.91. (267) See id. at 519. (268) This might slightly modify the presumption of Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), that agency inaction is generally not subject to judicial review. See id. at 831. The modification would arise only in a small numb......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 provisions
  • Chemical facility anti-terrorism standards,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 28, 2006
    • December 21, 2006
    ...review if ``agency action is committed to agency discretion by law''). See also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985) (recognizing the exception to the presumption of agency reviewability in 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2)); Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633 (D.C......
  • Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 13, 2018
    • December 13, 2018
    ...Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law . . .'') (emphasis added); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); see also 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1) (authorizing the Director of the Bureau to ``issue . . . guidance as may be necessary or appropr......
  • Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 04, 2013
    • June 4, 2013
    ...by the compliance date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \163\ See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 \164\ This scenario is not limited to a prospective SEF that is already operating a swaps-trading platform in reliance on a Commission staff relief l......
  • Board of Immigration Appeals: Affirmance Without Opinion, Referral for Panel Review, and Publication of Decisions as Precedents
    • United States
    • Executive Office For Immigration Review
    • Invalid date
    ...subject to review because the decision whether to follow those processes is committed to agency discretion by law. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 826, 836 (1985) (FDA policy statement that agency is ``obligated'' to investigate unapproved uses of an approved drug when such use became ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results