This subchapter, chapter 7, and sections 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5372, and 7521 of this title, and the provisions of section 5335(a)(B) of this title that relate to administrative law judges, do not limit or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law. Except as otherwise required by law, requirements or privileges relating to evidence or procedure apply equally to agencies and persons. Each agency is granted the authority necessary to comply with the requirements of this subchapter through the issuance of rules or otherwise. Subsequent statute may not be held to supersede or modify this subchapter, chapter 7, sections 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5372, or 7521 of this title, or the provisions of section 5335(a)(B) of this title that relate to administrative law judges, except to the extent that it does so expressly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
102
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013).
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 14× “See 5 U.S.C. § 559 (stating that the APA, including its chapter on judicial review, “do[es] not limit or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law”); Ninilchik Traditional Council v.”
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999).
· cites it 4× “244 , 5 U. S. C. § 559 . A statutory intent that legislative departure from the norm must be clear suggests a need for similar clarity in respect to grandfathered common-law variations.”
Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “'" Porter, 2008 WL 2065189 , at *4 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 559 ). In both Ewing and Porter the Tax Court specifically discussed how its trial de novo procedures for reviewing IRS decisions were "well-established" and "recognized by law" before the enactment of the APA in 1946.”
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988).
· cites it 2× “While a right to judicial review of agency action may be created by a separate statutory or constitutional provision, once created it becomes subject to the judicial review provisions of the APA unless specifically excluded, see 5 U. S. C. § 559 . To my knowledge, no specific…”
Douglas Carlson v. PRC, 938 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 559 (“[A] [s]ubsequent statute may not be held to supersede or modify .”
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999).
· cites it 4× “244 , 5 U. S. C. §559 . A statutory intent that legislative departure from the norm must be clear suggests a need for similar clarity in respect to grandfathered common-law variations.”
Mann Constr., Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 559 . “Exemptions from the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act are not lightly to be presumed.”
Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Vail, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Comm'r, 134 T.C. 211 (Tax Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “ative history does not even mention the APA, and both the Supreme Court and the APA itself provide that exceptions to the APA's terms cannot be inferred--much less inferred from an absence in the legislative history: Recognizing the importance of maintaining a uniform approach…”
Five Points Road Jt. Venture v. Johanns, 542 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “3d at 109 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 559 ). There is nothing in the NAD statutes that expressly states that the APA is inapplicable.”
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.