Administrative Law

Heckler v. Chaney — Study Notes

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court)

Study notes for Heckler v. Chaney: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

An agency's decision not to take enforcement action is unreviewable when it falls within the agency's discretion.
Professor Notes

In Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an agency's refusal to take enforcement action can be subjected to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court emphasized the distinction between mandatory enforcement actions and those that are discretionary, highlighting that the FDA's decision not to regulate the use of approved drugs for lethal injection was rooted in its enforcement discretion. Professors would likely stress the implications of this case for understanding agency priorities and the limits of judicial review, and how the outcome influences other challenges regarding agency inaction.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1The Supreme Court held that the FDA's decision not to enforce against drug use in lethal injections is presumptively unreviewable. What does 'presumptively unreviewable' mean?
  2. 2Explain the significance of the APA's § 701(a)(2) in the context of this case.
  3. 3What factors can lead a court to determine whether an enforcement action is unreviewable?
  4. 4Discuss the implications of this case for future petitions regarding agency inaction.
  5. 5How did the Court differentiate between mandatory and discretionary action by agencies in this case?
  6. 6In what ways might the outcome of Heckler v. Chaney affect the relationship between the FDA and state authorities?
  7. 7Can you think of any examples where agency discretion has faced judicial scrutiny outside of this case?
Mnemonic Device

Heckler's Choice: When agencies pick their battles, courts can't interfere.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Massachusetts v. EPAUnlike Heckler, Massachusetts v. EPA involved the Court mandating the enforcement of an agency's statutory duty, where judicial review was justified.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. VolpeIn Overton Park, the Court found that agency decisions could be reviewed when there were clear statutory mandates, contrasting with Heckler where discretion was established.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Chevron focused on interpreting agency regulations and mandates, while Heckler dealt with the absence of enforcement, emphasizing differences in judicial review contexts.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Allowing agencies discretion in enforcement decisions promotes flexibility and allows them to prioritize resources effectively.

Against the Rule

Permitting unreviewable agency inaction could undermine accountability and harm public interest when agencies fail to act on pressing issues.

Class Discussion Points
  • The role of discretion in administrative agencies and its implications for regulatory effectiveness.
  • The balance between agency independence and public accountability.
  • The impact of Heckler v. Chaney on future cases challenging agency inaction.
Exam Angle

This case often appears on exams in connection with discussions about administrative discretion and the limits of judicial review under the APA, particularly regarding agencies' enforcement decisions.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.