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, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011).
Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 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. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 533 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2008). “18 U.S.C. § 3625 ; see Jasperson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 460 F.”
Jordan v. R. Wiley, 411 F. App'x 201 (10th Cir. 2011). “But we have suggested that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 likely precludes judicial review of such determinations.”
Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 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.”
Wiggins v. Wise, 951 F. Supp. 614 (S.D.W. Va 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, 650 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 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, 653 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 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. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172 (D.D.C. 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, 672 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2009). “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.”
Royer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 933 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 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, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Mass. 2003). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 3625 states that Sections 554-55, and 701-06 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Michael Richmond v. Joseph Scibana, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst. at Oxford, Wisconsin, 387 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 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.