Lewis Cent. Educ. Ass'n v. IA. BD. OF EDUC.

• Citation: 625 N.W.2d 687
• Decision Date: 25 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. 98-2272.,98-2272.
• Parties: LEWIS CENTRAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. IOWA BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS, Appellee, Sharon Collins, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

625 N.W.2d 687

LEWIS CENTRAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. IOWA BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS, Appellee, Sharon Collins, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 98-2272.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 25, 2001.

William R. Unger, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Heather Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Iowa Board of Educational Examiners.

Brett S. Nitzschke and Brian L. Gruhn of Gruhn Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, for intervenor-appellee Sharon Collins.

Considered en banc.

LARSON, Justice.

This is an action by the Lewis Central Education Association (association) against the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners (board) concerning a complaint filed by the association against a principal in the Lewis Central School District. The board found no probable cause to support the complaint, and the association sought judicial review. The district court ruled that the board's no-probable-cause finding was not subject to judicial review and dismissed the petition. We reverse and remand.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

On May 4, 1998, the association, which is the recognized professional teachers organization representing nonsupervisory, licensed employees of the Lewis Central Community School District, filed a written complaint with the board against Sharon Collins, a principal in the Lewis Central district. The board, which is charged with the licensing and disciplining of teachers and administrators under Iowa Code chapter 272 (1997), appointed an investigator to report to the board. Following the investigation, the board issued an order, dated August 20, 1998, stating:

The Complaint was filed with the Board of Educational Examiners on May 4, 1998. Subsequently, an investigation was completed. Having reviewed this matter in its entirety, including the complaint and the investigative report, it appears to the Board there is insufficient evidence supporting the charges to constitute the probable cause necessary to set the matter for hearing.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Complaint in this matter is hereby rejected pursuant to 282 IAC 11.6(1)(a).

On September 17, 1998, the association filed a petition for judicial review in Polk County District Court, claiming the no-probable-cause finding was the result of legal error and an abuse of discretion. Specifically, the association complained that the board's decision denied the association an opportunity to "rebut, meet with the Board, respond to, or confront the Respondent's defense prior to making its no probable cause determination" and did not even inform the association how the board defined or applied the probable-cause standard. The board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, and the court did so, ruling that the board's decision not to initiate a contested-case proceeding for lack of probable cause was a decision that is not subject to judicial review. That presents the sole issue on the association's appeal to this court.

II. Principles of Review.

Our review of a ruling on a motion to dismiss is for correction of errors at law. Haupt v. Miller, 514 N.W.2d 905, 907 (Iowa 1994). The association contends the court's dismissal of its judicial review petition was an error of law because the board's no-probable-cause finding was reviewable under the judicial review provisions of Iowa Code chapter 17A.

III. Discussion.

The district court rested its ruling largely on the case of Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), which held an agency's decision not to prosecute a complaint was not reviewable by the courts, based on federal precedent and the federal administrative procedure act, 5 U.S.C. § 701. Chaney is an interesting case involving a challenge by death-row inmates to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) refusal to take action on the inmates' complaint that prescription drugs were not "safe and effective" when used for lethal injections in human executions. The plaintiffs demanded the FDA (1) investigate to determine whether the drugs were safe and effective for lethal injections, (2) require the manufacturers to label the drugs to warn against their use for lethal injections, and (3) take enforcement actions to eliminate such unapproved use of the drugs. Chaney, 470 U.S. at 823-24, 105 S.Ct. at 1652, 84 L.Ed.2d at 719.

The FDA refused to take any of these requested actions, citing federal case law and public policy considerations. The plaintiffs sought judicial review, and a federal district court affirmed. The federal court of appeals reversed, holding the FDA's inaction was reviewable as arbitrary and capricious. Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174, 1188 (D.C.Cir.1983).

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision, holding the FDA's refusal to act was not judicially reviewable. In doing so, the Court analyzed the federal administrative procedure act under which review of federal agency action is available unless a statute precludes judicial review or the agency's action is committed to its discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). The Court construed § 701(a)(2) as creating an exception to judicial reviewability for decisions committed to absolute agency discretion. The Court held this absolute, unreviewable discretion under § 701(a)(2) exists when Congress has drawn a statute so broadly "a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion." Chaney, 470 U.S. at 830,105 S.Ct. at 1655,84 L.Ed.2d at 723. Because agency decisions not to prosecute or enforce presumptively do not have meaningful standards against which to review them, such decisions are not judicially reviewable under the federal administrative procedure act unless Congress has set forth a clear standard for the agency that would allow a court to review the agency's refusal to act. Id. at 832-34, 105 S.Ct. at 1656-57,84 L.Ed.2d at 724-26. The Court said that

[t]his Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. This recognition of the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.

Id. at 831, 105 S.Ct. at 1655, 84 L.Ed.2d at 723 (citations omitted).

A. The impact of Chaney. The Court in Chaney gave these reasons for denying review of agency decisions not to enforce: (1) These decisions involve "a complicated balancing" of factors such as allocation of agency resources and a realization that "[a]n agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing," (2) courts generally defer to an agency's construction of the statute it enforces, and (3) an agency's refusal to enforce is akin to a prosecutor's discretion not to indict. Id. at 831-32, 105 S.Ct. at 1655-56, 84 L.Ed.2d at 723-24.

The Court, however, concluded that an agency decision not to enforce is only presumptively unreviewable; "the presumption may be rebutted where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers." Id. at 832-33, 105 S.Ct. at 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d at 724. The Court cited Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975), a case that we discuss later, as a case involving adequate statutory guidelines to give courts a sufficient basis to review agency inaction. Chaney, 470 U.S. at 833, 105 S.Ct. at 1656-57, 84 L.Ed.2d at 725. Another federal case, Center for Auto Safety v. Dole, 828 F.2d 799 (D.C.Cir.1997), illustrates the type of "judicially manageable" standards that would allow judicial review of agency inaction. The court said

[the agency] is bound by its own regulation requiring that it grant a citizen petition if there is a "reasonable possibility" that a safety-related defect exists. This "reasonable possibility" standard provides the court with a judicially manageable standard for reviewing [agency] petition decisions, thereby rebutting the presumption against judicial review of nonenforcement decisions, established in Chaney.

Dole, 828 F.2d at 815.

In the present case, despite the reliance on Chaney by the board and the district court, we believe it is inapposite for four reasons. First, our administrative procedure act is significantly different from the federal act. Second, aside from the statutory differences, the board's rules require a statement of reasons for rejecting enforcement that may be examined by a court and used as guidance on judicial review. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 282-11.6(1). Third, the statute creating the board provides, without limitation, that "[b]oard action is final agency action for purposes of chapter 17A." Iowa Code § 272.2(8). Fourth, Iowa Code section 272.2(15) and the rules of the board, see Iowa Administrative Code rule 282-11.6(1), anticipate the agency action would be based on probable cause, a "judicially manageable" standard that is a familiar concept to courts.

B. The federal and state statutes compared. Under the federal administrative procedure act, judicial review of agency action is available "except to the extent that—(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law." 5 U.S.C. § 701(a).

As the Court said in Chaney, unreviewable discretion under § 701(a)(2) exists when Congress has drawn a statute so broadly that courts have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. Chaney, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. at 1655, 84 L.Ed.2d at 723. In Iowa's administrative procedure act, however, there is no equivalent to federal § 701(a)(2). The Iowa act provides the act "shall be construed to apply to all covered agency proceedings and all agency action not expressly exempted by this chapter or by another statute specifically...