Changes

1,256 bytes added , 20:31, February 13, 2023

no edit summary

Line 115: Line 115:

''Pub. Emps. for Env't Responsibility v. Nat'l Park Serv.'', Civil Action No. 19-3629 (RC), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93204, at *51-52 (D.D.C. May 24, 2022).

+

== Tenth Circuit ==

+

There is no private cause of action for FACA within the [[Tenth Circuit]]:

+

{{cquote|R-CALF's reliance on Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 302 U.S. App. D.C. 208 (D.C. Cir. 1993), for the proposition that it can be afforded discovery is unpersuasive. At best, the Clinton case appears to assume that FACA provides a private cause of action. More importantly, though, Clinton precedes Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S. Ct. 1511, 149 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2001) wherein the Supreme Court provided clear direction for courts on whether Congress created a private remedy. Id. at 286 (the "judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.... Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative"). The Tenth Circuit's position on this point is clear - FACA did not create a private cause of action. Thus, the out-of-circuit and dated Clinton case provides no basis for a remedy outside the APA or for discovery.}}

+

''Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. USDA'', No. 19-CV-205-F, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259057, at *8-9 (D. Wyo. Nov. 16, 2020).

== References ==

[[category:administrative Law]]

[[category:government]]

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,204

edits

Changes

FACA (view source)

Revision as of 20:31, February 13, 2023

Navigation menu

Search