Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
National Appeals Order Subject to Judicial Review
Gaby R. JabbourNational AgLaw Center Research Assistant
Summary of Decision
In Payton v. United States Dep't of Agric., 337 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a district court had jurisdiction to review a farmer's challenge to a National Appeals Division (NAD) decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
Background
In 1997, plaintiff Charles A. Payton enrolled a thirty-five-acre parcel of land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). See id. at 1166. In November of 2000, the County Committee for the Farm Services Agency (FSA) terminated Payton's enrollment in the CRP. See id. The state FSA Committee upheld this decision. See id. Payton appealed the Committee's decision to the NAD Hearing Officer. See id. The Hearing Officer concluded that Payton was not in violation of his CRP contract. See id. (citation omitted). The FSA appealed the Hearing Officer's decision to the National Appeals Division (NAD). See id. The NAD Director reversed the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding that "substantial evidence did not support the Hearing Officer's determination . . . ." Id. at 1167. Payton sought judicial review of the NAD decision pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6999 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See id. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the NAD decision. See id. Payton appealed the district court's decision to the Tenth Circuit. See id.
Analysis and Holding
The court explained that "[a]s a general proposition all agency actions are presumed reviewable under the . . . APA." Id. at 1167 (citation omitted). It noted that 5 U.S.C §701(a)(1) and (2) provided two exceptions to this general principle: when judicial review is expressly precluded by statute or when the agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. See id. at 1168 (citation omitted). The court explained that the first exception does not apply to this case because judicial review was expressly authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 6999. See id. It also noted that the exception for actions committed to agency discretion by law was a narrow exception and was "'applicable in those rare instances where statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.'" Id. (citation omitted).
The court stated that this case did not fall within the second narrow exception because "[w]hether a participant was in compliance with the terms and conditions of his CRP contract must be decided on the basis of the facts and the law, and is not left to the unfettered discretion of the agency." Id. It added that "the agency's factual and legal conclusion that Mr. Payton violated the terms of his CRP contract [was] governed by straightforward legal standards, and [was] squarely within the jurisdiction of the courts under the APA." Id.
The case was decided on July 29, 2003; this summary was posted June 23, 2004.