Opinion

Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees v. Thomas O. Paine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

  • 436 F.2d 882
  • 141 U.S. App. D.C. 152
  • 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9666
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Apr 21, 1970
Status
Published
Author
Tamm
On the bench
Tamm, Robinson
Cited by
50 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.9%

explaining that the APA “provides for judicial review, not only of ‘agency action made reviewable by statute,’ but also of ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court’” (emphasis added)

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that the APA “provides for judicial review, not only of ‘agency action made reviewable by statute,’ but also of ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court’” (emphasis added)
  • “[T]he exhaustion requirement contemplates an efficacious administrative remedy, and does not obtain when it is plain that any effort to meet it would come to no more than an exercise in futility.”
  • exhaustion of administrative remedies not required where attempt would be futile
  • per Judge Robinson, Judge Tamm concurring in result

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TAMM, Circuit Judge

(concurring):

I concur in the result reached by Judge Robinson in his opinion in this case. I do not question that the authorities quoted in that opinion stand for exactly the principle for which they have been enumerated, but I do not believe that these lengthy data are necessary to support *899 the court’s action in this case. The teachings of Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 371 , 424 F.2d 859 (1970), Association of Data Processing Serv. Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 , 90 S.Ct. 827 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970), and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 , 90 S.Ct. 832 , 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970) are that the only conditions necessary to establish standing are a showing of ag-grievement in fact, a prima facie showing of some administrative illegality, a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution, and sufficient review of the relevant statutes to establish that there is no manifestation of a congressional intent that judicial review should be withheld. These criteria being met in the present case, I feel that the appellants have the necessary standing to maintain this action and that the case consequently must be remanded.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.