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

5 U.S.C. § 570

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any agency action relating to establishing, assisting, or terminating a negotiated rulemaking committee under this subchapter shall not be subject to judicial review. Nothing in this section shall bar judicial review of a rule if such judicial review is otherwise provided by law. A rule which is the product of negotiated rulemaking and is subject to judicial review shall not be accorded any greater deference by a court than a rule which is the product of other rulemaking procedures.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2010 · leading case: The Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. § 570 . Section 6571(b)(4) does not explicitly describe selection of committee members as being included in.”
Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 209 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 7× “See 5 U.S.C. § 570 . Second, defendant argues that the establishment of the negotiated rulemaking committee is not a final agency action that is subject to judicial review under the APA.”
Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 315 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 2× “As to the advocacy group plaintiffs, Education contends that the NCLBA gave them no right to participate in the negotiated rulemaking process; as to Lindsey, Education argues that she cannot show that Education’s alleged procedural violation concretely injured any of her…”
Fort Peck Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 367 F. App'x 884 (10th Cir. 2010). “" 5 U.S.C. § 570 . However, this does not mean we ignore the forty-eight members of the negotiated rulemaking committee who represented a number of Indian tribes.”
USA Grp. Loan Servs., Inc. v. Riley, 82 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 1996). “5 U.S.C. § 570 . But even if a regulation could be invalidated because the agency had failed to negotiate in good faith, this would not carry the day for the servi-cers.”
Ctr Law Educ v. EDUC, No. 02-5227 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2005). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. § 570 . Section 6571(b)(4) does not explicitly describe selection of committee members as being included in the “process” subject to the provisions of the NRA, but it does not explicitly exclude member selection from the “process” subject to the NRA.”
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.