Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHarrison, John
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:56.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:49:34Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:49:34Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierjregonline/1
dc.identifier.contextkey17819237
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/5438
dc.description.abstractIn Trump v. Pennsylvania,1the Supreme Court faces the question whether the Administrative Procedure Act’s provision governing scope of judicial review instructs courts to give universal injunctions—injunctions telling the government not to apply a challenged agency action to anyone, not just the plaintiff. That provision, section 706 of title 5 of the United States Code, does not direct courts to give universal remedies. It does not address remedies at all. When it says that the reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that fails the tests it sets out, section 706 means that courts are not to follow the agency ac-tion in deciding the case.2The APA addresses remedies, not in section 706, but in section 703. Section 703in turn points to the remedies law as-sociated with the forms of proceeding for judicial review that it identifies.
dc.titleSection 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Call for Universal Injunctions or Other Universal Remedies
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal on Regulation Online Bulletin
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:49:35Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/jregonline/1
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jregonline&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Harrison_Bulletin.pdf
Size:
106.5Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record