holding that parole guidelines were “substantive agency action, for they define a fairly tight framework to circumscribe the Board’s statutorily broad power” and “were of a kind calculated to have a substantial effect on ultimate parole decisions”
How later courts described this case
- holding that parole guidelines were “substantive agency action, for they define a fairly tight framework to circumscribe the Board’s statutorily broad power” and “were of a kind calculated to have a substantial effect on ultimate parole decisions”
- concluding that the “formula like” guidance for determining the length of parole constituted a substantive rule, as it involved the “purely mechanical operation” of computing a score using exclusive criteria
- noting that the Probation Service is exempted from the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity because of “its status as an auxiliary of the courts, which, unlike agencies of the executive branch, are specifically excluded” under the APA, and concluding that the Board of Parole, as a “agenc[y] of the executive branch[,]” is not similarly exempted
- explaining that the Probation Service’s exemption from the APA was “warranted not by the functions it performs . . . but by its status as an auxiliary of the courts”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)
See Batterton, 648 F.2d at 708 (agency’s choice of a methodology for calculating unemployment rates affects federal funding levels and thus “trenches on substantial private rights”); National Ass’n of Home Health Agencies v. Schweiker, 690 F.2d 932, 949 (D.C.Cir.1982) (following Batterton), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1193, 75 L.Ed.2d 438 (1983); Pickus v. United States Bd. of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1112 (D.C.C…
Distinguished
Distinguished by Roger W. Gale v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary, Department of Interior, 643 F.2d 826 (1980)
Because Pickus is clearly distinguishable we find that it does not preclude exempting the Trust Territory under 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(C).
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing addressed solely to the question of the retroactive effect of our decision in this case upon past Parole Board hearings and decisions in individual cases.
Our opnion in this ease did not purport to invalidate and our decision does not have the effect of invalidating past determinations of the Board upon the merits of particular cases. Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, decided June 26, 1974, 418 U.S. 539, at 573 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 at 2983 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 .
The petition for i*ehearing is denied.