5 U.S.C. § 555
Ancillary matters
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
In subsection (b), the words “is entitled” are substituted for “shall be accorded the right”. The word “officers” is omitted as included in “employees” in view of the definition of “employee” in section 2105. The words “With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time” are substituted for “with reasonable dispatch” and “except that due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives”. The prohibition in the last sentence is restated in positive form and the words “This subsection does not” are substituted for “Nothing herein shall be construed either to”.
In subsection (c), the words “in any manner or for any purpose” are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (e), the word “brief” is substituted for “simple”. The words “of the grounds for denial” are substituted for “of procedural or other grounds” for clarity.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Section 555 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2247 of Title 7, Agriculture.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,206
cases (624 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen
Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen (2010)
“Governing procedural rules, derived mainly from § 555 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 555 , and the Due Process Clause, are few.”
A Community Voice v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017)
“” 5 U.S.C. § 555 (b). This has been interpreted to mean that an agency has a duty to fully respond to matters that are presented to it under its internal processes.”
Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry (2016)
“]” 5 U.S.C. § 555 (b) (“With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.”
Yong Tang v. Chertoff (2007)
“Since adjustment of status is within the discretion of the Attorney General, -defendants argue that no aspect of it is reviewable. Plaintiffs counter that, while the final decision as to adjustment of status is within the Attorney General’s discretion, aspects of the process,…”
Olivares v. Transportation Security Administration (2016)
“Petitioner claims that TSA failed to satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) when it initially rejected his application for training because the agency gave no “grounds for 'denial.”
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)
“, at 4 ; see also 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e). They moreover arise out of denials of petitions for rulemaking which (at least in the circumstances here) the affected party had an undoubted procedural right to file in the first instance.”
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1987)
“The vast majority of denials of reconsideration, however, are made without statement of reasons, since 5 U. S. C. § 555 (e) exempts from the normal APA requirement of "a brief statement of the grounds for denial" agency action that consists of "affirming a prior denial.”
Pelt v. State Board of Insurance (1991)
“In 5 U.S.C.A. § 555 (d) (1977), Congress empowered federal administrative agencies to issue subpoenas "authorized by law .”
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization (1976)
“Respondents apparently made no attempt to clarify the meaning of the Ruling in this regard, as, for example, by filing with the IRS a petition for clarification of the Ruling pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 555 (e), see, e. g., Dunlop v.”
Butz v. Economou (1978)
“See 5 U. S. C. § 555 (b) (1976 ed.). They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence.”
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
“§§ 1331 and 1350, among other statutory bases, they asserted causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 , 702, 706; the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.”
Friends of the Bow v. Thompson (1997)
“of the sale was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act; (2) the Forest Service should have conducted a supplemental environmental assessment based on new evidence concerning the forest’s sustainable yield; (3) the Forest Service did not respond…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(B) — 1 case
Jaffari v. Garland (2023)
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) — 16 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(d) — 2 cases
Pelt v. State Board of Insurance (1991)
“In 5 U.S.C.A. § 555 (d) (1977), Congress empowered federal administrative agencies to issue subpoenas "authorized by law .”
United States v. Security State Bank and Trust, Dr. William R. Newton, Intervenors-Appellants (1973)
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) — 2 cases
Rakhimov v. Gacki (2020)
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.