Unsurprisingly, while I was in the Rockies, the First Circuit affirmed the decision we talked about in Rhode Island last Spring.
The DOGE / Tangerine “freezes” ran afoul of the APA. And the courts may both review that lawless action, and countermand it, thus:
…The Government thus appears to be of the view that, notwithstanding the APA’s presumption of reviewability, the limited statutory examples that it has put forth suffice to cast doubt on whether virtually any of the States’ APA claims target agency actions that can be reviewed under § 701(a)(2). Even if we were to accept that doubtful premise, however, we still would reject the Government’s position, given what Lincoln holds.
There, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Health Service’s decision to discontinue a program that provided services “to handicapped Indian children in the Southwest” was “‘committed to agency discretion by law.'” Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 184 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)). But the Supreme Court did so on the limited grounds that “[t]he allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation is [an] administrative decision traditiionally regarded as committed to agency discretion,” id. at 192, and the relevant statutes spoke “about Indian health only in general terms” and did “not so much as mention” the program at issue, id. at 194.
Thus, contrary to the Government’s suggestion, Lincoln did not address an agency’s discretion to withhold obligated funds.
It thus did not hold that agencies have unreviewable discretion to categorically stop disbursing obligated funds, such that they may indefinitely pause their disbursement of them in a categorical fashion….
Now you know. Onward, to… Iowa. Smile.
नमस्ते
Powerline Lies... 