A plaintiff challenging a HUD subsidized rental program termination challenged the agency after the statutorily required internal appeal would have been available; where Congress mandates exhaustion, what is the likely result regarding exhaustion?

A plaintiff challenging a HUD subsidized rental program termination challenged the agency after the statutorily required internal appeal would have been available; where Congress mandates exhaustion, what is the likely result regarding exhaustion?

• A. Yes, because where Congress specifically mandates exhaustion of remedies, parties must exhaust the prescribed administrative remedies.
• B. No, because exhaustion is never required before federal court review.
• C. Yes, but only if the agency's decision is final and capable of judicial review.
• D. No, because exhaustion would unduly delay access to the courts.

Answer: (A)

Exhaustion when Congress requires it is a binding prerequisite to judicial review. When the statute mandating internal remedies exists, the agency must be allowed to apply those remedies, develop the record, and correct procedural or policy issues before the courts intervene. In this HUD case, there is a statutorily required internal appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff must complete that internal appeal and exhaust the prescribed administrative remedies before seeking federal court review of the termination. Bypassing the internal process would generally prevent court review; only after exhaustion could the matter be reviewed on its merits. The other options don’t fit because they ignore the clear statutory mandate to exhaust. Exhaustion isn’t categorically unnecessary, nor does finality or mere potential judicial reviewability override a Congress-ordered internal appeal. And while delaying access to court can be a concern, the statute’s command controls here.

Exhaustion when Congress requires it is a binding prerequisite to judicial review. When the statute mandating internal remedies exists, the agency must be allowed to apply those remedies, develop the record, and correct procedural or policy issues before the courts intervene. In this HUD case, there is a statutorily required internal appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff must complete that internal appeal and exhaust the prescribed administrative remedies before seeking federal court review of the termination. Bypassing the internal process would generally prevent court review; only after exhaustion could the matter be reviewed on its merits.

The other options don’t fit because they ignore the clear statutory mandate to exhaust. Exhaustion isn’t categorically unnecessary, nor does finality or mere potential judicial reviewability override a Congress-ordered internal appeal. And while delaying access to court can be a concern, the statute’s command controls here.