5 U.S.C. § 706
Scope of review
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface of this report.
Pub. L. 85–791,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19,576
cases (4,078 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)
“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.”
Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)
“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 Commerce (2019)
“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. (2001)
“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 Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016)
“” 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 (2019)
“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, and Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (2004)
“§ 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. Commissioner (2013)
“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. (2018)
“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 (1979)
“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 Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co. (2009)
“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 Communications, Inc. (2008)
“§ 1651 (a), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (Administrative Procedure Act).”
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) — 23 cases
Friends of Animals v. Sparks (2016)
Price v. Pierce (1985)
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) — 30 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) — 67 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) — 4 cases
Maddern v. Austin (2022)
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D) — 3 cases
Maddern v. Austin (2022)
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E) — 3 cases
Grenada Bank v. Watson (1973)
Maddern v. Austin (2022)
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) — 2 cases
Hirsch v. United States (2019)
Gates v. King (1997)
— 5 U.S.C. § 706(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
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.