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

5 U.S.C. § 555

Ancillary matters

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except as otherwise provided by this subchapter.(b) A person compelled to appear in person before an agency or representative thereof is entitled to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by other qualified representative. A party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in an agency proceeding. So far as the orderly conduct of public business permits, an interested person may appear before an agency or its responsible employees for the presentation, adjustment, or determination of an issue, request, or controversy in a proceeding, whether interlocutory, summary, or otherwise, or in connection with an agency function. 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. This subsection does not grant or deny a person who is not a lawyer the right to appear for or represent others before an agency or in an agency proceeding.(c) Process, requirement of a report, inspection, or other investigative act or demand may not be issued, made, or enforced except as authorized by law. A person compelled to submit data or evidence is entitled to retain or, on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, procure a copy or transcript thereof, except that in a nonpublic investigatory proceeding the witness may for good cause be limited to inspection of the official transcript of his testimony.(d) Agency subpenas authorized by law shall be issued to a party on request and, when required by rules of procedure, on a statement or showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. On contest, the court shall sustain the subpena or similar process or demand to the extent that it is found to be in accordance with law. In a proceeding for enforcement, the court shall issue an order requiring the appearance of the witness or the production of the evidence or data within a reasonable time under penalty of punishment for contempt in case of contumacious failure to comply.(e) Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding. Except in affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 385.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 1005.

June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 6, 60 Stat. 240.

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.

Editorial NotesCodification

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 Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Butte Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 18× “Governing procedural rules, derived mainly from § 555 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 555 , and the Due Process Clause, are few.”
A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “” 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 Serv. to the United States v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 5× “]” 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, 493 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D. Mass. 2007). · cites it 8× “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. Transp. Sec. Admin., 819 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “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. Env't Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). · cites it 2× “, 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 Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). · cites it 4× “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 Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “In 5 U.S.C.A. § 555 (d) (1977), Congress empowered federal administrative agencies to issue subpoenas "authorized by law .”
Simon v. E. Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976). · cites it 2× “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, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). · cites it 2× “See 5 U. S. C. § 555 (b) (1976 ed.). They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence.”
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). · cites it 2× “§§ 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, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “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…”
Show all 1,206 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(B) — 1 case
Jaffari v. Garland (S.D. Cal. 2023).
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) — 16 cases
Ecee, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 645 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1981).
Humane Soc'y of the United States v. McCarthy, 209 F. Supp. 3d 280 (D.D.C. 2016).
DeVyver v. Warden, US Penitentiary, 388 F. Supp. 1213 (M.D. Penn. 1974).
Pars Equity Ctr. v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2026).
Salgar (S.D. Tex. 2026).
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(d) — 2 cases
Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. App. 1991). “In 5 U.S.C.A. § 555 (d) (1977), Congress empowered federal administrative agencies to issue subpoenas "authorized by law .”
United States v. Sec. State Bank & Trust, Dr. William R. Newton, Intervenors-Appellants, 473 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1973).
— 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) — 2 cases
Wiley v. United States Bd. of Parole, 380 F. Supp. 1194 (M.D. Penn. 1974).
Rakhimov v. Gacki (D.D.C. 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.