霍克斯之后的最后行动

W. Funk
{"title":"霍克斯之后的最后行动","authors":"W. Funk","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2825443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. (Hawkes), holding that Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) made by the Corps are final agency actions subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (Sackett) in 2012, also involving a dispute as to whether certain lands were wetlands subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, this outcome was not surprising, but the Court’s opinion and the accompanying concurring opinions still leave much open to question regarding how the term “final agency action” in the APA is to be interpreted. This article will discuss first what the Court has decided and what it has suggested, and then it will discuss the questions left open and suggest how they might be answered.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Final Agency Action after Hawkes\",\"authors\":\"W. Funk\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2825443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. (Hawkes), holding that Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) made by the Corps are final agency actions subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (Sackett) in 2012, also involving a dispute as to whether certain lands were wetlands subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, this outcome was not surprising, but the Court’s opinion and the accompanying concurring opinions still leave much open to question regarding how the term “final agency action” in the APA is to be interpreted. This article will discuss first what the Court has decided and what it has suggested, and then it will discuss the questions left open and suggest how they might be answered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":233762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2825443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2825443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2016年5月31日,最高法院对美国陆军工程兵团诉霍克斯公司(Hawkes Co.)一案作出判决,认为美国陆军工程兵团做出的管辖权决定(JDs)是根据《行政程序法》进行司法审查的最终机构行动。继2012年Sackett诉EPA案(Sackett)的判决之后,也涉及到关于某些土地是否属于《清洁水法》管辖范围内的湿地的争议,这一结果并不令人惊讶,但法院的意见和附带的赞同意见仍然留下了很多悬而未决的问题,即如何解释APA中的“最终机构行动”一词。本文将首先讨论法院的裁决和建议,然后讨论尚未解决的问题,并建议如何回答这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Final Agency Action after Hawkes
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. (Hawkes), holding that Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) made by the Corps are final agency actions subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (Sackett) in 2012, also involving a dispute as to whether certain lands were wetlands subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, this outcome was not surprising, but the Court’s opinion and the accompanying concurring opinions still leave much open to question regarding how the term “final agency action” in the APA is to be interpreted. This article will discuss first what the Court has decided and what it has suggested, and then it will discuss the questions left open and suggest how they might be answered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信