Congress requires an agency to initiate a rulemaking to limit excess fees by internet service providers and to complete it within one year. Three years later, the agency has not initiated. Can a federal court hear a suit to compel the agency to start the rulemaking?

Congress requires an agency to initiate a rulemaking to limit excess fees by internet service providers and to complete it within one year. Three years later, the agency has not initiated. Can a federal court hear a suit to compel the agency to start the rulemaking?

• A. No, because Courts do not have jurisdiction to remedy an Agency's failure to take regulatory action.
• B. No, because Courts must defer to an agency decision to refuse to initiate rulemaking.
• C. Yes, because Federal Courts have authority to exercise jurisdiction over all decisions by federal agencies.
• D. Yes, because Federal Courts have jurisdiction over claims of unlawful or unreasonable delay by agencies.

Answer: (D)

The test hinges on judicial review of agency inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act. When Congress imposes a duty on an agency to act and sets a deadline, the agency has a nondiscretionary obligation to act within that timeframe. The APA allows a court to compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, provided there is no other adequate remedy. Here, Congress directed the agency to initiate rulemaking within one year to address excess ISP fees, yet three years have passed with no action. That is an unreasonable delay and a failure to act under the statute, so a federal court may hear a suit to compel the agency to start the rulemaking. The other views fail because they either deny the court’s jurisdiction to address either inaction or delay, or improperly defer to the agency’s choice not to act. The point of the statute is not to leave such inaction unreviewable, but to provide a remedy when an agency unlawfully withholds action or delays unreasonably.

The test hinges on judicial review of agency inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act. When Congress imposes a duty on an agency to act and sets a deadline, the agency has a nondiscretionary obligation to act within that timeframe. The APA allows a court to compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, provided there is no other adequate remedy. Here, Congress directed the agency to initiate rulemaking within one year to address excess ISP fees, yet three years have passed with no action. That is an unreasonable delay and a failure to act under the statute, so a federal court may hear a suit to compel the agency to start the rulemaking.

The other views fail because they either deny the court’s jurisdiction to address either inaction or delay, or improperly defer to the agency’s choice not to act. The point of the statute is not to leave such inaction unreviewable, but to provide a remedy when an agency unlawfully withholds action or delays unreasonably.