Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

APA Claims Barred Because Plaintiffs Had
an Adequate Remedy at Law

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Garcia v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 519, 2009 WL 1098703 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that plaintiffs were not entitled to pursue Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for failure to investigate their discrimination complaints because they had an adequate remedy at law: Congress had authorized eligible claimants to pursue their claims in federal court, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) allowed them to recover actual damages from the federal government.

Background

Hispanic and female farmers brought this action against the USDA, alleging that the USDA had discriminated against them in the distribution of federal farm benefits in violation of the ECOA, and had failed to investigate their administrative complaints in violation of USDA regulations and the APA. Id. at *1. The APA provides, "Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review." Id. at *2 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704). The ECOA, which prohibits discrimination in lending and credit transactions, authorizes recovery of actual damages from creditors, including the federal government. Id. at *1. In response to years of the USDA's failure to investigate discrimination claims, Congress enacted a special remedial statute in 1998 for applicants who had filed a "nonemployment related complaint" with the USDA before July 1, 1997, alleging that discrimination occurred between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996. Id. (citing Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 741(e) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2279)). This statute allowed eligible complainants the option of either filing an ECOA action in federal court or renewing their old administrative complaints for further investigation by the USDA. Id. The plaintiffs in this action chose the former option and pursued their discrimination claims in the federal district court. Id. at *2. However, they simultaneously sought to pursue their failure-to-investigate claims under the APA in the same lawsuit. Id. The district court dismissed their failure-to-investigate claim after finding that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law, and plaintiffs appealed. Id. at *1.

Analysis and Holdings

The court reasoned that Congress had not intended to allow complainants to pursue both remedies; rather, § 741 gave them an option to either pursue their discrimination claims in the federal court or resubmit their old complaints to the USDA for review pursuant to the APA. Id. at *4. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs' APA claim was barred because they had an adequate remedy at law because the ECOA permits successful claimants to recover actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. The court, citing precedent, explained that "third-party suits are an adequate remedy for the alleged victims of statutory violations, like unlawful discrimination, because they provide relief of 'the same genre' as that offered by an APA claim." Id. at *5. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' APA failure-to-investigate claims. Id. at *7.

The case was decided on April 24, 2009.