Brief Fact Summary. The Indian Health Service (Service) decided to stop funding the Indian Children’s Program (Program) in favor of other services for Indians across the United States. A group of handicapped Indian children (Respondents) eligible to receive services through the Program brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Director of the Service and the Service, claiming the decision violated the Snyder Act, the APA, and other statutes.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. While the APA embodies a presumption of judicial review, Section:701(a)(2) precludes judicial review of certain categories of administrative decisions that courts have traditionally regarded as “committed to agency discretion.”
Issue. Was it error for the Court of Appeals to hold the substance of the Service’s decision to terminate the Program unreviewable under the APA?
Held. No. The Service’s decision to discontinue the Program was “committed to agency discretion by law,” and therefore not subject to judicial review under APA Section:701(a)(2). The allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation is an administrative decision traditionally regarded as committed to agency discretion. The point of a lump-sum appropriation is to give an agency the ability to adapt to changing circumstances as it sees fit. Dissent. None. Concurrence. None.
Whatever else may be considered a general statement of policy, the term surely includes an announcement like the one before us, that an agency will discontinue a discretionary allocation of unrestricted funds from a lump-sum appropriation.View Full Point of Law