778 F.3d 412
2d Cir.2015Background
- Westchester County sues HUD under the APA challenging HUD's rejection of the County's FY2011 AI and fair housing certification to obtain HUD grants.
- District court dismissed the APA claims as not subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) (agency discretion by law).
- A consent decree from 2009 required the County to perform an AI and to promote source-of-income legislation, with HUD to deem AI acceptable.
- HUD repeatedly rejected the County’s AI and fair housing certification, threatening reallocation of approximately $7.4 million in FY2011 funds.
- Mootness arises for funds that were reallocated; the case proceeds on the non-reallocated HOME funds, and the matter is remanded to address remaining claims.
- Issues include whether HUD’s actions are reviewable, and whether statutory framework provides standards for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are HUD's actions subject to judicial review under the APA? | Westchester argues review is allowed; actions not committed to discretion by law. | HUD contends actions are committed to agency discretion by law under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). | Not committed to agency discretion; reviewable under the APA. |
| Is the appeal moot as to funds reallocated during the appeal? | Relief could be provided for non-reallocated funds; reallocated funds moot. | Reallocated funds cannot be restored; mootness applies to those funds. | affirmed mootness for reallocated funds; remaining funds subject to review. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar relitigation of HUD’s rejection as reviewable? | Monitor decisions and related rulings could estop review. | Prior monitor rulings fully resolved questions; estoppel applies. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Do HUD's statutory limitations preclude judicial review of its rejection of the AI and certification? | Statutes like 42 U.S.C. §§ 12705, 12708, 12711 provide standards for review. | Discretionary language and 'satisfaction' provisions shield agency choices. | Statutes provide meaningful standards; actions are reviewable; remand to consider merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (mootness in APA actions when funds redistributed; limits on relief)
- Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits on 'discretion by law' review; law-to-apply standard)
- Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009) (strong presumption of judicial review under APA)
- Boguslavsky v. Kaplan, 159 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 1998) (collateral estoppel four-factor test)