102 F.4th 1011
9th Cir.2024Background
- CBP administers SENTRI, a Trusted Traveler Program intended to facilitate border crossing for low-risk individuals.
- Jacobo Jajati, a U.S. citizen, had his SENTRI membership revoked by CBP without receiving a clear explanation, following his ex-wife’s arrest for drug smuggling.
- Jajati’s membership was later reinstated and then revoked again, with CBP providing no specific reasoning at any stage.
- Jajati sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the revocation was arbitrary and violated procedural requirements.
- The district court dismissed Jajati’s suit, concluding the CBP’s decisions were "committed to agency discretion by law" and thus not subject to judicial review; Jajati appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that sufficient regulatory and statutory standards exist to allow judicial review under the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is CBP's SENTRI revocation reviewable under the APA? | CBP must follow regulatory criteria and cannot act arbitrarily; there are standards to review. | SENTRI revocations are committed to agency discretion by law; regulations provide no judicially manageable standard. | Review is available. SENTRI regulations and statute contain standards courts can apply. |
| Are there meaningful standards constraining CBP's discretion? | The regulations mandate CBP to consider specific eligibility criteria; this constrains discretion. | Criteria are too vague, non-exhaustive, and undefined to meaningfully limit agency discretion. | The criteria (though broad) provide meaningful law to apply. |
| Does CBP need to provide an explanation for SENTRI revocations? | Failure to provide reasons or consider criteria violates the APA's requirements for reasoned decisionmaking. | Regulations require only notice of revocation, not the reasons; no enforceable process requirement. | On remand, the court must review whether lack of reasoning or consideration of criteria was arbitrary/capricious. |
| Can broad, discretion-laden standards still permit judicial review? | Even broad standards like "low-risk" or public interest are sufficient for reviewability if rooted in regulatory requirements. | Vague, broad standards without clear definitions or weightings are not judicially reviewable. | Broad, but articulated, standards can be reviewed for abuse of discretion or failure to comply with required process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (strong presumption in favor of judicial review under the APA)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (explains the narrow exception for actions committed to agency discretion by law)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (APA preclusion of review applies only where statutes are drawn so broadly that "no law to apply")
- Newman v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 937 (whether agency’s application of broad but defined criteria is judicially reviewable)
- Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action)
- City of Los Angeles v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 307 F.3d 859 (standards such as "public interest" or "feasible" sufficient to permit judicial review)
- Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708 (explains limits of "no law to apply" doctrine for reviewability)