U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 5— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

5 U.S.C. § 500

Administrative practice; general provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For the purpose of this section—(1) “agency” has the meaning given it by section 551 of this title; and(2) “State” means a State, a territory or possession of the United States including a Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.(b) An individual who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State may represent a person before an agency on filing with the agency a written declaration that he is currently qualified as provided by this subsection and is authorized to represent the particular person in whose behalf he acts.(c) An individual who is duly qualified to practice as a certified public accountant in a State may represent a person before the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department on filing with that agency a written declaration that he is currently qualified as provided by this subsection and is authorized to represent the particular person in whose behalf he acts.(d) This section does not—(1) grant or deny to an individual who is not qualified as provided by subsection (b) or (c) of this section the right to appear for or represent a person before an agency or in an agency proceeding;(2) authorize or limit the discipline, including disbarment, of individuals who appear in a representative capacity before an agency;(3) authorize an individual who is a former employee of an agency to represent a person before an agency when the representation is prohibited by statute or regulation; or(4) prevent an agency from requiring a power of attorney as a condition to the settlement of a controversy involving the payment of money.(e) Subsections (b)–(d) of this section do not apply to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patent matters that continue to be covered by chapter 3 (sections 31–33) of title 35.(f) When a participant in a matter before an agency is represented by an individual qualified under subsection (b) or (c) of this section, a notice or other written communication required or permitted to be given the participant in the matter shall be given to the representative in addition to any other service specifically required by statute. When a participant is represented by more than one such qualified representative, service on any one of the representatives is sufficient.(Added Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(1)(A), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 195; amended Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(b)(2)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–583.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Section of title 5

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Revised Statutes at Large)

500(a)

5 App.: 1014.

Nov. 8, 1965, Pub. L. 89–332, § 3, 79 Stat. 1281.

500(b)–(e)

5 App.: 1012.

Nov. 8, 1965, Pub. L. 89–332, § 1, 79 Stat. 1281.

500(f)

5 App.: 1013.

Nov. 8, 1965, Pub. L. 89–332, § 2, 79 Stat. 1281.

The definition of “State” in subsection (a)(2) is supplied for convenience and is based on the words “State, possession, territory, Commonwealth, or District of Columbia” in subsections (a) and (b) of 5 App. U.S.C. 1012.

In subsection (d), the words “This section does not” are substituted for “nothing herein shall be construed”.

In subsection (d)(3), the word “employee” is substituted for “officer or employee” to conform to the definition of “employee” in 5 U.S.C. 2105.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1999—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 106–113 substituted “United States Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 420 cases (77 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). · cites it 2× “On remand, the Corps reaffirmed its original conclusion and issued a revised JD to that effect.”
Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012). · cites it 2× “We consider whether Michael and Chantell Sackett may bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §500 et seq., to challenge the issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of an admin­ istrative compliance order under §309 of the Clean Water…”
PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “Granted, the agency must adhere to notice-and-comment procedures, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 (a)(1), 551, 553; must “consider” the costs and benefits of proposed rules, 12 U.”
Cic Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv., 925 F.3d 247 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “745 was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. and the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.”
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC., 924 F.3d 684 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., and common law principles of estoppel.”
El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “, Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq.; Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “As relevant here, the Guedes plaintiffs ("Guedes") and the Codrea plaintiffs ("Codrea") argued that the Bureau promulgated the Bump-Stock Rule in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq . Also, the Firearms Policy Coalition ("Coalition") and Codrea…”
Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of US Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “The Secretary's decision could then be challenged in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. ("APA"), as the Secretary conceded in a similar case, Connecticut v.”
Johnson v. Am. Stand., 8 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2010). · cites it 2× “[10] 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 , et seq. [11] Leading treatises on Pennsylvania jurisprudence further reflect the potential confusion in this area of the law.”
Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Claim 13 also alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. We understand this to be an allegation that the APA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for violations of the First and Fifth Amendments and authorizes remedies for such…”
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 2× “[9] This court's decision in Spiniello Construction Co. appears to have been influenced by the adoption of an "injury in fact" basis for standing in the federal courts following the enactment of the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013). “According to the League, the EPA not only lacks the statutory authority to impose these regulations, but it violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., by implementing them without first proceeding through the notice and comment procedures for…”
Show all 420 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 500(d)(2) — 1 case
Nissen v. Biden (D.N.M. 2024).
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.