U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 7— JUDICIAL REVIEW

5 U.S.C. § 706

Scope of review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;(D) without observance of procedure required by law;(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 393.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 1009(e).

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

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface of this report.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesAbbreviation of Record

Pub. L. 85–791, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 941, which authorized abbreviation of record on review or enforcement of orders of administrative agencies and review on the original papers, provided, in section 35 thereof, that: “This Act [see Tables for classification] shall not be construed to repeal or modify any provision of the Administrative Procedure Act [see Short Title note set out preceding section 551 of this title].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19,576 cases (4,078 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009). · cites it 21× “Syllabus the meaning of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §706 (2)(A). Pp. 9–19. (a) Under the APA standard, an agency must “examine the rele vant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.”
Dep't of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (2019). · cites it 15× “The APA instructs reviewing courts to set aside agen- cy action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or oth- erwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U. S. C. §706 (2)(A), but it makes review unavailable “to the extent that” the agency action is “committed to…”
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 351 F. Supp. 3d 502 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 17× “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be," among other things, "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory…”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 8× “822, 834 (1984); APA, 5 U. S. C. §§ 706 (2)(A), (D). But whether or not they enjoy any express delegation of authority on a particular question, agencies charged with applying a statute necessarily make all sorts of interpretive choices, and while not all of those choices bind…”
Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261 (2016). · cites it 8× “” Compare post, at 13, with 5 U. S. C. §§706 (2)(A)–(D). By contrast, where a patent holder merely challenges the Patent Office’s “determin[ation] that the information presented in the petition .”
Alvarez Sosa v. Barr, 369 F. Supp. 3d 492 (E.D.N.Y 2019). · cites it 15× “To the extent that plaintiff's "objections" can be construed as asserting that Magistrate Judge Brown erred in failing to consider her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), plaintiff never expressly raised such a claim in her complaint.”
Pgba, LLC v. United States, & Wisconsin Physicians Serv. Ins. Corp., 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 10× “§ 1491 (b)(4), in combination with 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), required the court to set aside TMA’s award of TDEFIC to WPS because the court had found TMA’s conduct of the procurement to have been arbitrary and capricious.”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 22× “See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) (authorizing reviewing courts to set aside agency actions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with law.”
Willie Ousley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 909 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 8× “Disparate Treatment of Fraud Allegations Based on Originating Source According to plaintiffs, the SSA also violated the APA’s prohibition on “arbitrary” or “capricious” decisionmaking, see 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), by adopting different procedures for claimants whose…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). · cites it 11× “The pertinent provisions of § 10 (e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706 , state that a reviewing court shall "(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be— "(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with…”
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “Both NEPA and CWA claims are subject to judicial review under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2006). For all agency actions, a reviewing court must set aside the action if it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
In Re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “§ 1651 (a), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (Administrative Procedure Act).”
Show all 19,576 citing cases →
5 U.S.C. § 706(1): 23 cases
Friends of Animals v. Sparks, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1114 (D. Mont. 2016).
Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Inc. v. United States, 601 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2009).
Tehama-Colusa Canal Auth. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 819 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 395 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Wis. 1975).
Price v. Pierce, 615 F. Supp. 173 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2): 30 cases
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 133 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2015).
Metcalf Constr. Co. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 617 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker, 139 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 2015).
Tehama-Colusa Canal Auth. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 819 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A): 67 cases
Former Employees of Motorola Ceramic Prods. v. United States, 336 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 916 F. Supp. 1557 (N.D. Ga. 1995).
Slingluff v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 425 F.3d 861 (10th Cir. 2005).
Nathaniel Keon Smith, by His Mother & Next Friend Sanova Smith v. Otis Bowen, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1989).
Tenneco Oil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Nos. 76-2960, 571 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1978).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C): 4 cases
Emily's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 362 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2005).
Maddern v. Austin (S.D. Cal. 2022).
Spellmon (M.D. La. 2026).
Natl Horsemen's Benevolent v. Black (5th Cir. 2026).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D): 3 cases
Maddern v. Austin (S.D. Cal. 2022).
Make the Road New York v. Pompeo (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2026).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E): 3 cases
United States v. Eurodif S. A., 555 U.S. 305 (2009).
Grenada Bank v. Watson, 361 F. Supp. 728 (N.D. Miss. 1973).
Maddern v. Austin (S.D. Cal. 2022).
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a): 2 cases
Hirsch v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
Gates v. King (4th Cir. 1997).
5 U.S.C. § 706(a)(2)(A): 1 case
Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2025).
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.