898 F.3d 1242
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Matthew Sluss, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, was sentenced in U.S. federal court to 396 months’ imprisonment and applied under the U.S.–Canada Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences for transfer to a Canadian prison.
- The Attorney General (via delegation) denied Sluss’s transfer request and a subsequent request for reconsideration, citing offense seriousness, U.S. domicile, criminal history, and limited Canadian contacts.
- Sluss sued in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the denial was arbitrary and capricious because the Attorney General relied on improper factors and failed to abide by Article III, §6 of the Treaty (which requires authorities to “bear in mind all factors bearing upon the probability that transfer will be in the best interests of the Offender”).
- The district court dismissed Sluss’s complaint as committed to agency discretion and thus unreviewable; on remand it again dismissed, finding Section 6 lacked a judicially manageable standard or, alternatively, that the Attorney General had considered appropriate factors.
- On appeal the government argued the Treaty is non-self-executing (so not domestic law) and that the implementing statute (Transfer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4100 et seq.) vests unreviewable discretion in the Attorney General.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the court had jurisdiction, the Treaty (and implementing statute) supply law to apply, review is narrow and confined to whether the Attorney General considered the Treaty’s Section 6 factors, and the denial here was not arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a treaty-based claim | Sluss: federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1331 for treaty-based claims | Govt: Treaty is non-self-executing so cannot form basis for federal-question jurisdiction | Court: Self-execution is non-jurisdictional; §1331 jurisdiction exists and claim is not plainly insubstantial |
| Whether the Treaty (or only the Transfer Act) provides enforceable standards | Sluss: Section 6 of the Treaty supplies substantive standards to govern transfer decisions | Govt: Treaty is non-self-executing; Transfer Act alone governs and commits decisions to Attorney General discretion | Court: Transfer Act implements and incorporates Treaty standards; those standards form domestic law to be applied |
| Whether Section 6 gives "law to apply" or leaves decisions unreviewable | Sluss: Section 6 requires consideration of offender’s best interests and is reviewable under APA | Govt: Transfer decisions are committed to agency discretion and thus unreviewable | Court: Section 6 contains mandatory language and suffices as limited, judicially manageable standard; review is narrow |
| Whether the Attorney General’s denial was arbitrary and capricious | Sluss: Denial improperly weighed or considered forbidden factors; transfer would benefit him (shorter term, more allowance) | Govt: Denial based on permissible factors tied to Treaty purposes (domicile, family contacts, criminal history, lack of hardship from foreign incarceration) | Court: Denial was not arbitrary and capricious; Attorney General considered Section 6 factors in light of Treaty’s rehabilitative purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (distinguishes self-executing vs. non-self-executing treaties)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (absence of cause of action is not necessarily a jurisdictional defect)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (Sup. Ct. 1946) (federal-question jurisdiction exists if claim might be sustained under one construction of federal law)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (Sup. Ct. 1974) (federal claim must be more than plainly insubstantial to invoke jurisdiction)
- Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (even broadly discretionary statutory directives can create limited, reviewable standards)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (agency actions committed to agency discretion are unreviewable under APA)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (judicial review under APA requires reviewable standards and procedures)
- Bagguley v. Bush, 953 F.2d 660 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (prisoner-transfer treaty at issue provided no judicially manageable criteria and was unreviewable)