Administrative Law and Procedure Sample Clauses

Administrative Law and Procedure. O305, 325 The powers of an agency include the powers delegated by the legislature in clear and express statutory language, to- gether with any implied powers that may be necessary to perform a function or duty delegated by the legislature.

Administrative Law and Procedure. O666 Person suing under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) must satisfy not only Article III’s standing requirements; inter- est he asserts must also be arguably within zone of interests to be protected or regu- lated by statute that he says was violated. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1; 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.

Administrative Law and Procedure. O666 Requirement that person suing under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as- sert interest arguably within zone of inter- ests to be protected or regulated by stat- ute that he says was violated is applied in keeping with Congress’s ‘‘evident intent’’ when enacting APA to make agency action presumptively reviewable; no indication of congressional purpose to benefit would-be plaintiff is required. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.

Administrative Law and Procedure. O666 Requirement that person suing under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as- sert interest ‘‘arguably’’ within zone of in- terests to be protected or regulated by statute that he says was violated forecloses suit only when plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Con- xxxxx intended to permit the suit. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. Syllabus * The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property ‘‘for the purpose of pro- viding land to Indians.’’ 25 U.S.C. § 465. Petitioner Match–E–Be–Xxxx–She–Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band), an Indian tribe federally recognized in 1999, requested that the Secretary take into trust on its behalf a tract of land known as * The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Xxx- ber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. the Xxxxxxx Property, which the Band in- tended to use ‘‘for gaming purposes.’’ The Secretary took title to the Xxxxxxx Proper- ty in 2009. Respondent Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, who lives near the Xxxxxxx Property, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that § 465 did not authorize the Secretary to acquire the property because the Band was not a fed- erally recognized tribe when the IRA was enacted in 1934. Xxxxxxx alleged a variety of economic, environmental, and aesthetic xxxxx as a result of the Band’s proposed use of the property to operate a casino, and requested injunctive and declaratory relief reversing the Secretary’s decision to take title to the land. The Band inter- vened to defend the Secretary’s decision. The District Court did not reach the mer- its of Xxxxxxx’x suit, but ruled that he lacked prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition of the Xxxxxxx Property. The D.C. Circuit reversed and also rejected the Secretary’s and the Band’s alternative argument that sover- eign immunity barred the suit.