Taylor-Callahan-Coleman Counties District Adult Probation
Department v. Dole case brief summary
948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.S. § 501 et seq., and U.S. Const. amend. V, when it allegedly promulgated rules interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq., without first adhering to the notice and comment requirements of the APA or constitutional due process requirements. The crux of plaintiff's argument was that defendant issued certain opinion letters in lieu of conducting formal rulemaking. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
The judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed because defendant's action, which was complained of by plaintiff, was not final agency action.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
948 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1991)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff sought review of a judgment
from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction plaintiff's
action, which sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
against defendant for allegedly promulgating rules interpreting the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.S. § 501 et seq., and U.S. Const. amend. V, when it allegedly promulgated rules interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq., without first adhering to the notice and comment requirements of the APA or constitutional due process requirements. The crux of plaintiff's argument was that defendant issued certain opinion letters in lieu of conducting formal rulemaking. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
- On review, the court found that the opinion letters involved were akin to threshold determinations. They set out no definitive statement of defendant's policy.
- Further, the court found that the opinion letters did not have the status of law with penalties for noncompliance, nor did they have a direct or immediate impact on plaintiff.
- Therefore, the court concluded that they were not final agency action subject to judicial review.
- Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed
The judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed because defendant's action, which was complained of by plaintiff, was not final agency action.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment