5 U.S.C. § 701

Application; definitions

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

(a) This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that—(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.(b) For the purpose of this chapter—(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—(A) the Congress;(B) the courts of the United States;(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;(D) the government of the District of Columbia;(E) agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them;(F) courts martial and military commissions;(G) military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory; or(H) functions conferred by sections 1738, 1739, 1743, and 1744 of title 12; subchapter II of chapter 471 of title 49; or sections 1884, 1891–1902, and former section 1641(b)(2), of title 50, appendix; 11 See References in Text note below. and(2) “person”, “rule”, “order”, “license”, “sanction”, “relief”, and “agency action” have the meanings given them by section 551 of this title.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 392; Pub. L. 103–272, § 5(a), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 111–350, § 5(a)(3), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3841.)

Historical and Revision Notes
(a)	5 U.S.C. 1009 (introductory clause).	June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 10 (introductory clause), 60 Stat. 243.

Historical and Revision Notes

(a)

5 U.S.C. 1009 (introductory clause).

June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 10 (introductory clause), 60 Stat. 243.

In subsection (a), the words “This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof,” are added to avoid the necessity of repeating the introductory clause of former section 1009 in sections 702–706.

Subsection (b) is added on authority of section 2 of the Act of June 11, 1946, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 237, as amended, which is carried into section 551 of this title.

In subsection (b)(1)(G), the words “or naval” are omitted as included in “military”.

In subsection (b)(1)(H), the words “functions which by law expire on the termination of present hostilities, within any fixed period thereafter, or before July 1, 1947” are omitted as executed. Reference to the “Selective Training and Service Act of 1940” is omitted as that Act expired on Mar. 31, 1947. Reference to the “Sugar Control Extension Act of 1947” is omitted as that Act expired on Mar. 31, 1948. References to the “Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended” and the “Veterans’ Emergency Housing Act of 1946” have been consolidated as they are related. The reference to former section 1641(b)(2) of title 50, appendix, is retained notwithstanding its repeal by § 111(a)(1) of the Act of Sept. 21, 1961, Pub. L. 87–256, 75 Stat. 538, since § 111(c) of the Act provides that a reference in other Acts to a provision of law repealed by § 111(a) shall be considered to be a reference to the appropriate provisions of Pub. L. 87–256.

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 NotesReferences in Text

Sections 1884 and 1891–1902 of title 50, appendix, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(H), were a part of the various Housing and Rent Acts which were classified to section 1881 et seq. of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, and had been repealed or omitted from the Code as executed prior to the elimination of the Appendix to Title 50. See Elimination of Title 50, Appendix note preceding section 1 of Title 50. Section 1641 of title 50, appendix, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(H), was repealed by Pub. L. 87–256, § 111(a)(1), Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 538.

Amendments

2011—Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 111–350 struck out “chapter 2 of title 41;” after “title 12;”.

1994—Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 103–272 substituted “subchapter II of chapter 471 of title 49; or sections” for “or sections 1622,”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6,284 cases (1,121 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Franklin v. Massachusetts

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) scotus · cites it 14× “A threejudge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the decision to allocate military personnel serving overseas to their "homes of record" was arbitrary and capricious under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),…”

Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump (2018) ca4 · cites it 14× “” See 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2). The APA bars review if “a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion” because the statute has “‘committed’ the decisionmaking to the agency’s judgment absolutely.”

Bernardo Ex Rel. M & K Engineering, Inc. v. Johnson (2016) ca1 · cites it 12× “(alteration in original) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(1)). Such is the case before us.”

Webster v. Doe (1988) scotus · cites it 10× “Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent's amended complaint on the ground that § 102(c) of the National Security Act (NSA) precludes judicial review of the Director's termination decisions under the provisions of the APA set forth in 5 U. S. C. §§ 701 , 702, and 706 (1982 ed.”

Chehazeh v. Attorney General of United States (2012) ca3 · cites it 15× “§ 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., we will reverse the District Court‟s order and remand for further proceedings.”

Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. (1980) scotus · cites it 10× “It held the Commission's determination whether evidence before it provided the requisite reason to believe is "committed to agency discretion" and therefore is unreviewable according to § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 701 (a) (2). The Court of…”

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1987) scotus · cites it 10× “If a judicial panel or an en banc court denies rehearing, no one supposes that that denial, as opposed to the panel opinion, is an appealable action (though the filing of a timely rehearing petition, like the filing of a timely petition for agency reconsideration, extends the…”

Heckler v. Chaney (1985) scotus · cites it 6× “It noted that the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 701 , only precludes judicial review of final agency action including refusals to act, see 5 U.”

State of Texas v. USA (2015) ca5 · cites it 6× “5 U.S.C. § 701 (a). Because of those restrictions, a state would have limited ability to challenge many asylum determinations.”

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2020) scotus · cites it 3× “, at 169 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) ). The majority then upheld the injunction on two grounds.”

High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke (2006) ca10 · cites it 12× “” 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(1). 3 In other words, before the waiver of sovereign immunity under § 702 of the APA applies, “a party must first clear the hurdle of § 701(a).”

Conyers v. Rossides (2009) ca2 · cites it 5× “7 Conyers principally seeks a judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., declaring that the Administrator misconstrued the ATSA insofar as he (1) did not utilize the FAA’s personnel management system in hiring security screeners, as Conyers…”

Show all 6,284 citing cases →

— 5 U.S.C. § 701(a) — 15 cases

Conyers v. Rossides (2009) ca2 “7 Conyers principally seeks a judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., declaring that the Administrator misconstrued the ATSA insofar as he (1) did not utilize the FAA’s personnel management system in hiring security screeners, as Conyers…”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. MacH Mining, LLC (2013) ca7

Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee (1971) cadc

Secretary of Labor of the United States v. Phil Farino and Hoe Kow Cantonese Restaurant (1973) ca7

Davis Associates, Inc. v. Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Dover Housing Authority (1974) ca1

— 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) — 9 cases

NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. McLaughlin (1989) dcd

Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army (1989) ca8

Danuta Dec v. Markwayne Mullin (2026) ca7

Muniz v. Miller (2024) mad

Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (2025) cadc

— 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) — 11 cases

Target Training International, Ltd. v. Lee (2014) iand

Healthy Teen Network v. Azar (2018) mdd

Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (1987) mnd

Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals (2025) ca4

William F. Wilke, Inc. v. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY OF US (1973) mdd

— 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) — 1 case

W. B. Fishburn Cleaners, Inc. v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service (1974) txnd

— 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(2) — 2 cases

Bowman v. United States (2007) ohnd

Hopi Tribe v. Watt (1982) azd

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.