5 U.S.C. § 703
Form and venue of proceeding
The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If no special statutory review proceeding is applicable, the action for judicial review may be brought against the United States, the agency by its official title, or the appropriate officer. Except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 415
cases (65 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: United States v. William Szabo, 760 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2014).
United States v. William Szabo, 760 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2014). “” 5 U.S.C. § 703 (emphasis added). “[So long as] Congress provides for a ‘special statutory review proceeding’ in one specific court, challenges to the administrative action must take place in the designated forum.”
Chehazeh v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 666 F.3d 118 (3rd Cir. 2012). “2004) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 703 ). “[I]n the absence or inadequacy” of any “special statutory review” provision, review may take “any applicable form of legal action.”
Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump, 883 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018). “For Congress to delegate the sweeping power that the Proclamation claims, it must do so 10 The Government claims that Plaintiffs cannot invoke this Court’s inherent authority because the “APA governs suits challenging government actions,” citing 5 U.S.C. § 703 . Third Br. 8. But…”
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019). “Second, did PDR have a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the Order? 5 U. S. C. §703 . If the Hobbs Act’s exclusive- review provision, which requires certain challenges to FCC orders to be brought in a court of appeals “within 60 days after” the entry…”
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). “5 U. S. C. §703 . The availability of pre- enforcement review does not ordinarily preclude judicial review in en- forcement proceedings.”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). “Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the findings of the Secretary if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.”
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988). “Still others, like employees in respondent's classification, had no right to such review.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. ITT World Commc'ns, Inc., 466 U.S. 463 (1984). “Noting that exclusive jurisdiction for review of final agency action lay in the Court of Appeals, that court held that the District Court nonetheless could entertain under 5 U. S. C. §703 3 a suit that alleged that FCC participation in the Consultative Process should be enjoined…”
Reyes Garcia, Aurora Garcia, Epifanio Garcia & Eloy Garcia v. Hal W. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1982). “§ 2201 , 7 and under 5 U.S.C. § 703 . 8 The district court referred their petition to a magistrate who conducted a hearing, considered the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and recommended that the petition be denied.”
Responsibility v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 892 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “is contrary to law,” and, if the Commission fails to correct the illegality on remand, the “complainant may bring” 1 CREW and Sloan mislabeled their pleading a “Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987). “While the Hobbs Act specifies the form of proceeding for judicial review of ICC orders, see 5 U. S. C. § 703 , it is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that codifies the nature and attributes of judicial review, including the traditional principle of its unavailability "to…”
Michael Cousins v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 880 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1989). “§§ 701-706 , since it incorporates by reference other, more specific statutory procedures, see 5 U.S.C. § 703 , and since it tends to expand relief beyond what other statutes offer, not to contract it, see, e.”
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.