Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
1992-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text

933 chars
463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2867; see also Organized Fishermen, 775 F.2d at 1550. With reference to these considerations, the appellees defend the judgment of the district court on several grounds. They assert that the Agency, in the course of the rulemaking process, failed to consider the adequacy of state law to guarantee the rights of aggrieved tenants, failed to accord appropriate weight to adverse data about the actual burdens associated with the functioning of the pre-1983 grievance and appeals procedure, and failed sufficiently to respond to comments it had received which highlighted objections to the proposed change. None of these arguments, either in the form argued before us or as adopted by the district court, supports the district court’s reversal of the FmHA’s action when tested against the “highly deferential” standards applicable to judicial review of agency action. Organized Fishermen, 775 F.2d at 1550.