Sackett是否预示着FDA警告信不可复审的终结?

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Katelyn DeRuyter
{"title":"Sackett是否预示着FDA警告信不可复审的终结?","authors":"Katelyn DeRuyter","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>FDA warning letters are considered non-final agency actions and thus are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court's analysis in Sackett v. EPA suggests the legal tides might be shifting. In Sackett, the Court held that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance order was considered final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA. While there are differences between compliance orders and warning letters, both inform regulated parties of non-compliance with federal law and are highly valued measures of inducing \"voluntary compliance.\" Sackett should provide precedent for future litigation over judicial reviewability of warning letters.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":"68 3","pages":"241-58, i"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Sackett foreshadow the end of non-reviewability for FDA warning letters?\",\"authors\":\"Katelyn DeRuyter\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>FDA warning letters are considered non-final agency actions and thus are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court's analysis in Sackett v. EPA suggests the legal tides might be shifting. In Sackett, the Court held that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance order was considered final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA. While there are differences between compliance orders and warning letters, both inform regulated parties of non-compliance with federal law and are highly valued measures of inducing \\\"voluntary compliance.\\\" Sackett should provide precedent for future litigation over judicial reviewability of warning letters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"volume\":\"68 3\",\"pages\":\"241-58, i\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

FDA警告信被认为是非最终机构行为,因此不受行政程序法(APA)下的司法审查。最高法院在Sackett诉EPA案中的分析表明,法律潮流可能正在转变。在Sackett案中,法院认为环境保护署(EPA)的合规命令被认为是根据《行政程序法》接受司法审查的最终机构行动。虽然合规令和警告信之间存在差异,但两者都通知受监管方不遵守联邦法律,并且是诱导“自愿遵守”的高度重视措施。Sackett应该为未来关于警告信的司法可复审性的诉讼提供先例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Sackett foreshadow the end of non-reviewability for FDA warning letters?

FDA warning letters are considered non-final agency actions and thus are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court's analysis in Sackett v. EPA suggests the legal tides might be shifting. In Sackett, the Court held that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance order was considered final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA. While there are differences between compliance orders and warning letters, both inform regulated parties of non-compliance with federal law and are highly valued measures of inducing "voluntary compliance." Sackett should provide precedent for future litigation over judicial reviewability of warning letters.

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
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
×
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