Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Citation
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1992-01-24
Other Sections in This Document (42)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
- Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
Full Text
1,563 charsThe ground on which the district court ultimately invalidated the 1983 amendment was that the FmHA promulgated the amendment in a manner which violated the APA, relying on the familiar rule that requires courts to set aside agency rules which are, inter alia, promulgated through a procedure that is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1988). Taking the view that the FmHA had failed to consider legitimate concerns over the removal of evictions from grievance and appeals procedure, the district court announced that the “FmHA may attempt to re-promulgate the rule the Court finds invalid today; if it does, however, the agency must give serious consideration to all sides of the argument.” Hussion, 741 F.Supp. at 1570. Although we do not disagree with the district court’s finding that “[t]he administrative record is replete with legitimate concerns,” id., we are persuaded, on the basis of the record as a whole, that the process culminating in the 1983 amendment withstands scrutiny under the standards of the APA. Our review of the data and FmHA’s explanation for its action unambiguously establishes that the 1983 amendment is rational and based on a consideration of all relevant factors. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43, 103 *1553S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). According to the undisputed facts in this case and the appropriate legal standards, the Agency is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cf. North Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1539 (11th Cir.1990).