Steenholdt v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that General Services Administration regulations implementing the Federal Advisory Committee Act provided judicially manageable standards
• holding that agency’s decision under a regulation allowing an agency to take an action “for any reason the Administration considers appropriate” is committed to agency discretion and not reviewable under APA
• holding that agency’s decision under a regulation allowing an agency to take an action “for any reason the Administration considers appropriate” is committed to agency discretion and not renewable under APA
• holding that because the decision not to renew an aircraft examiner’s authority is committed to the Administrator’s discretion under 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d), judicial review of the substantive merits of that decision is precluded under the APA
• construing United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954)
• denying review of agency’s nonrenewal of petitioner’s authorization under provision granting the Administrator authority to rescind such authorization “for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate” (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 44,702(d)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).