Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules?

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
Jeffrey S. Lubbers
{"title":"Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules?","authors":"Jeffrey S. Lubbers","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2764937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The classic version of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement generally requires a party to go through all the stages of an administrative adjudication before going to court. However, the doctrine has developed a new permutation, covering situations where a petitioner for judicial review did follow all the steps of the administrative appeals process, but had failed to raise in that process the issues now sought to be litigated in court. In those cases, which have been called “issue exhaustion” cases, the thwarted petitioner will likely be out of luck since normally there is no further opportunity to raise the issue at the agency. In that sense, issue exhaustion bears some resemblance to standing-to-sue cases — a particular litigant is deemed unfit to challenge the agency’s action in court. Unlike remedy exhaustion, however, which only applies to agency adjudication, issue exhaustion can theoretically be applied to agency rulemaking. As this article will show, this has started to become a reality — to the potential detriment of the rulemaking process, if applied in an overbroad fashion.Although only two federal statutes explicitly require issue exhaustion in judicial review of rulemaking, there are many more generic exhaustion statutes that courts have begun to apply to rulemaking challenges. Some of the policy reasons for apply exhaustion principles to review of agency adjudications also apply to reviews of rulemaking, but not all. And there are some drawbacks to applying it to rulemaking challenges in certain types of cases. This paper, prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States, reviews the relevant statutes, the developing caselaw, and suggests the need for certain limitations to applying issue exhaustion in judicial reviews of rules. The paper provided the foundation for Administrative Conference Statement #19, Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking, Adopted September 25, 2015","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2764937","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2764937","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The classic version of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement generally requires a party to go through all the stages of an administrative adjudication before going to court. However, the doctrine has developed a new permutation, covering situations where a petitioner for judicial review did follow all the steps of the administrative appeals process, but had failed to raise in that process the issues now sought to be litigated in court. In those cases, which have been called “issue exhaustion” cases, the thwarted petitioner will likely be out of luck since normally there is no further opportunity to raise the issue at the agency. In that sense, issue exhaustion bears some resemblance to standing-to-sue cases — a particular litigant is deemed unfit to challenge the agency’s action in court. Unlike remedy exhaustion, however, which only applies to agency adjudication, issue exhaustion can theoretically be applied to agency rulemaking. As this article will show, this has started to become a reality — to the potential detriment of the rulemaking process, if applied in an overbroad fashion.Although only two federal statutes explicitly require issue exhaustion in judicial review of rulemaking, there are many more generic exhaustion statutes that courts have begun to apply to rulemaking challenges. Some of the policy reasons for apply exhaustion principles to review of agency adjudications also apply to reviews of rulemaking, but not all. And there are some drawbacks to applying it to rulemaking challenges in certain types of cases. This paper, prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States, reviews the relevant statutes, the developing caselaw, and suggests the need for certain limitations to applying issue exhaustion in judicial reviews of rules. The paper provided the foundation for Administrative Conference Statement #19, Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking, Adopted September 25, 2015
不评论自担风险:问题穷竭在规则的司法审查中有一席之地吗?
用尽救济要求的经典版本通常要求当事人在诉诸法院之前经历行政裁决的所有阶段。但是,这一原则发展了一种新的排列,包括要求司法审查的请愿人确实遵循了行政上诉程序的所有步骤,但未能在该程序中提出现在寻求在法院提起诉讼的问题的情况。在这些被称为“问题用尽”的情况下,被挫败的请愿人可能会不走运,因为通常没有进一步的机会向行政机关提出问题。从这个意义上说,问题穷竭与准备起诉案件有一些相似之处——一个特定的诉讼当事人被认为不适合在法庭上挑战行政机关的行动。然而,与救济穷竭不同的是,救济穷竭在理论上可以适用于机关规则的制定。正如本文将展示的那样,这已经开始成为现实——如果以过于宽泛的方式应用,将对规则制定过程造成潜在的损害。虽然只有两个联邦法规明确要求在对规则制定的司法审查中使用问题穷竭,但法院已经开始应用更多的一般性穷竭法规来应对规则制定的挑战。将穷尽原则应用于审查机构裁决的一些政策理由也适用于审查规则制定,但并非全部。在某些类型的案件中,将其应用于规则制定挑战也存在一些缺陷。本文是为美国行政会议编写的,审查了有关的法规、发展中的判例法,并建议在对规则的司法审查中对适用问题穷竭加以一定的限制。本文为2015年9月25日通过的行政会议第19号声明《行政规则制定执行前司法审查中的权利穷竭》提供了基础
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信