Summary

Thurgood Marshall Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v…

And the only hearing that is required by either the Administrative Procedure Act or the statutes regulating the distribution of federal funds for highway construction is a public hearing conducted by local officials for the purpose of informing the community about the proposed project and eliciting community views on the design and route. 23 U.S.C. § 128 (1964 ed., Supp. V) . The hearing is nonadjudicatory, quasi-legislative in nature. It is not designed to produce a record that is to be the basis of agency action-the basic requirement for substantial-evidence review.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v…

Despite the clarity of the statutory language, respondents argue that the Secretary has wide discretion. They recognize that the requirement that there be no 'feasible' alternative route admits of little administrative discretion. For this exemption to apply the Secretary must find that as a matter of sound engineering it would not be feasible to build the highway along any other route. [24] Respondents argue, however, that the requirement that there be no other 'prudent' route requires the Secretary to engage in a wide-ranging balancing of competing interests.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v…

Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 360 F.2d 715, 719 (CA2 1966) . Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
The final inquiry is whether the Secretary's action followed the necessary procedural requirements. Here the only procedural error alleged is the failure of the Secretary to make formal findings and state his reason for allowing the highway to be built through the park.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature