Rosomano v. Kearns

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that courts lack authority “to review claims where ‘an agency merely expresses its view of what the law requires of a party, even if that view is adverse to the party’” (citation omitted)
• holding that an EPA advice letter was not final agency action
• finding that EPA letter was not reviewable agency action when it restated \for the umteenth time\ its longstanding interpretation of certain regulations
• construing the Clean Air Act’s \final action” term as \synonymous with the term 'final agency action’ as used in Section 704 of the APA”
• noting that “practical consequences, such as the threat of having to defend [oneself] in an administrative hearing should the agency actually decide to pursue enforcement, are insufficient to bring an agency's conduct under our purview”
• the agency action at issue, a letter from the EPA explaining its position on certain emissions regulations as applied to plaintiff, was not final agency action because it had no \concrete impact\ on plaintiff and merely restated EPA's \longstanding interpretation\ of the regulations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).