18 U.S.C. § 3625
Inapplicability of the Administrative Procedure Act
The provisions of sections 554 and 555 and 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 267
cases (132 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Reeb v. Thomas
Reeb v. Thomas (2011)
“Because we hold that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 precludes judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of the BOP’s individualized RDAP determinations made pursuant to 18 U.”
Walton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2008)
“…order” regarding imprisonment, release, or pre-release placement in a halfway house. 18 U.S.C. § 3625 ; see Jasperson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, <a href="/opinion/2309247/jasperson-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons/#84" aria-description="Citation for case: Jasperson v. Federal…”
Jordan v. R. Wiley (2011)
“But we have suggested that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 likely precludes judicial review of such determinations.”
Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul Copenhaver (2016)
“The district court dismissed the habeas petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review an individual discretionary denial of a nunc pro tunc designation by the Bureau of Prisons because 18 U.S.C. § 3625 specifically exempts § 3621 decisions from the judicial review…”
Wiggins v. Wise (1996)
“On March 4, 1996, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 forecloses review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of actions taken by the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.”
Murray v. Bledsoe (2011)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3625 (explaining that the APA’s provisions for judicial review of administrative agency decisions, at 5 U.”
Standifer v. Ledezma (2011)
“To the extent Standifer challenges only the BOP’s decision regarding his eligibility for RDAP participation, his argument is expressly foreclosed by 18 U.S.C. § 3625 , which prohibits judicial review under the APA of RDAP placement decisions.”
Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2017)
“But, what the APA gives, another provision—18 U.S.C. § 3625—takes away. In that provision, Congress has specified that the APA’s provisions waiving sovereign immunity and creating a cause of action “do not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under” the…”
Perez v. Lappin (2009)
“…the BOP’s decision to assign a PSF is not subject to judicial review under the APA. 18 U.S.C. § 3625 (“The provisions of ... 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under [ 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-26…”
Royer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2013)
“BOP disagrees, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 precludes judicial review of decisions regarding the imprisonment of a convicted person and designation of the place of imprisonment under 18 U.”
Iacaboni v. United States (2003)
“Despite this authority, the Government argues that, whatever the propriety of its action, 18 U.S.C. § 3625 absolutely bars judicial review of discretionary decisions made by the BOP in this area.”
Michael Richmond v. Joseph Scibana, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin (2004)
“challenge under the APA, see 18 U.S.C. § 3625 ,. but Richmond does not contest his current placement; he contests only the rules that will.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.