Abstract
The United States Supreme Court's ultimate decision in SUWA will have implications for both the accountability of federal agencies under congressional directives and the likely outcome of on-the-ground disputes between competing federal land users. Courts are accustomed to compelling agency action when agencies fail to complete a procedural requirement. This case, however, turns the ordinary stance on judicial review of agency inaction on its head, and allows the court to review specific land management standards. Logically, both standards and procedural requirements are valid ways of controlling the action of a regulated party. In other contexts, agencies and courts are very familiar with the difference between standard-based regulations and regulations that require a regulated entity to go through a specific set of procedural requirements. The difference lies in where the regulated entity is given discretion to act.
Recommended Citation
Heckel, Maria E.
(2004)
"Finding the Line Between Action and Inaction: SUWA v.Norton and Judicial Review of Statutory Land Management Standards,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2004:
No.
3, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2004/iss3/4