Jenny Schieber v. United States, 77 F.4th 806

Background:

In 2014 the United States and France agreed that France would pay $60 million to a U.S.-administered fund to compensate certain non-French Holocaust deportation claimants; Article 6 gave the U.S. authority to determine distribution criteria unilaterally.
Article 8 of the Agreement requires that “any dispute arising out of the interpretation or performance” of the Agreement be settled exclusively by consultation between the United States and France.
22 U.S.C. § 2668a directs the Secretary of State to “determine the amounts due claimants” from settlement funds and the Treasury to pay those amounts; the State Department approved 386 of 867 claims and denied the plaintiffs’ claims.
Six unsuccessful claimants sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the State Department misapplied the Agreement (crediting or rejecting sworn affidavits and determining which country deported claimants).
District courts split: some held the suits presented nonjusticiable political questions; others dismissed on the merits, finding no APA cause of action. The D.C. Circuit held political-question concerns insufficient to bar review but concluded the APA provides no cause of action because agency allocation/administration is committed to agency discretion and the Agreement is not self-executing.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Political-question doctrine / Article III jurisdiction	Plaintiffs: disputes are legal/administrative and courts can adjudicate whether State followed Agreement and treated like claims alike.	Gov: Agreement’s diplomatic dispute clause and foreign-relations context make claims nonjusticiable.	Court: Political-question doctrine does not bar review; the claims present judicially manageable legal/factual issues.
Proper sequencing (jurisdiction before merits)	Plaintiffs: courts may resolve merits where appropriate.	Gov: some lower courts skipped jurisdictional analysis; Norton exception could apply.	Court: Must resolve jurisdiction first (Steel Co.); Norton exception inapplicable because claims not “plainly insubstantial.”
APA §701(a)(2) — committed to agency discretion (lump-sum allocation)	Plaintiffs: statutory framework and Agreement impose standards (Article 6 affidavits, objectives) enabling review.	Gov: §2668a plus lump-sum nature and Article 6 give Secretary broad discretion; allocation/administration of a lump-sum is presumptively unreviewable.	Court: Held §701(a)(2) applies; Secretary’s allocation/administration of the $60M is committed to agency discretion and lacks judicially manageable standards.
Whether Agreement is self-executing or domesticated (source of judicially enforceable standards)	Plaintiffs: §2668a implements Agreement and domesticates its criteria (Sluss), so APA review is available; Article 6’s reliance on sworn statements provides standards.	Gov: Agreement is non-self-executing; §2668a does not incorporate Agreement’s substantive standards; Article 8 would preclude judicial review if domesticated.	Court: Agreement not self-executing; §2668a does not domesticize substantive Agreement standards; domesticating Agreement would import Article 8’s diplomatic-exclusivity and thus preclude review under §701(a)(1).

Key Cases Cited

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must confirm subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits).
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (six-factor test for political-question doctrine).
Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012) (political-question doctrine has narrow scope; focus on first two Baker factors).
Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) (allocation of lump-sum appropriations is presumptively committed to agency discretion).
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency enforcement and related decisions traditionally presumptively unreviewable).
Sluss v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Int'l Prisoner Transfer Unit, 898 F.3d 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (a statute can domesticize a non-self-executing treaty and make agency action reviewable).
Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (nonjudicial corrective machinery in an agreement can render related claims nonjusticiable).
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (distinguishing self-executing from non-self-executing international obligations).