Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)

Citation
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Parent Document
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Effective Date
1983-05-12

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

864 chars
34
What appellants do challenge is HUD's "procedure for taking actions"--i.e., its procedure for making rules, which is conspicuously omitted from the unreviewable matters listed in Sec. 322(i)(3) and therefore not precluded from being challenged. This reading of the judicial review provisions cannot be dismissed as "sheer sophistry" (Op. p. 61) but, on the contrary, is called for under Johnson v. Robison, supra; moreover, an insistence on proper procedure and attention to public comments is particularly warranted when an agency has unreviewable substantive discretion. Since HUD has not presented "clear and convincing evidence" that Congress intended to bar review of HUD's refusal to follow proper procedures in formulating rules under Sec. 322, I would find that review is not precluded. See Abbott Laboratories, supra, 387 U.S. at 141, 87 S.Ct. at 1511.