Camp v. Pitts
411 U.S. 138 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a court finds that an administrative agency's stated justification for an informal action is inadequate for judicial review, the proper remedy is to obtain further explanation from the agency or remand the matter, not to conduct a de novo trial.
Facts:
- In 1967, Pitts and other respondents submitted an application to the Comptroller of the Currency, Camp, for a certificate to organize a new bank in Hartsville, South Carolina.
- The Comptroller gathered information from a national bank examiner and various interested parties.
- Based on this information, the Comptroller denied the application through a brief letter stating that the 'factors in support' of a new bank were 'not favorable.'
- The respondents did not request a formal hearing but asked for reconsideration of the decision.
- The Comptroller granted the request, conducted a supplemental field examination, and again denied the application.
- In a second letter, the Comptroller explained the denial was due to an unfavorable conclusion 'as to the need factor' in the community.
Procedural Posture:
- Pitts et al. (respondents) filed an action in the U.S. District Court seeking review of the Comptroller's denial of their bank charter application.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller, finding that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
- Pitts et al. (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals found the Comptroller's explanation 'unacceptable' for judicial review, vacated the district court's judgment, and remanded the case for a de novo trial in the District Court.
- The Comptroller (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the appropriateness of the de novo trial remedy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a reviewing court have the authority to order a de novo trial when it determines that an administrative agency's informal adjudicatory action is not adequately explained in the administrative record?
Opinions:
Per curiam - Per Curiam
No. When an administrative agency's explanation for an informal action is inadequate, the proper remedy is not a de novo trial in the reviewing court. The court's review is limited to determining whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, based on the administrative record that was before the agency at the time of its decision. Citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, the Court clarified that de novo review is only appropriate in two narrow circumstances: when the action is adjudicatory in nature and the agency's fact-finding procedures were inadequate, or when issues not before the agency are raised in a proceeding to enforce a nonadjudicatory agency action. A failure to explain a decision is not a failure of fact-finding procedures. Therefore, if the explanation is insufficient, the court should obtain additional explanation from the agency through affidavits or testimony. If the agency's finding is not sustainable on the administrative record, the court must vacate the decision and remand the matter to the agency for further consideration, consistent with the principle from SEC v. Chenery Corp.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural path for judicial review of informal agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It reinforces the principle of judicial deference by establishing that a court's role is to review the agency's decision-making process, not to substitute its own judgment for the agency's. By prohibiting de novo trials for inadequate explanations, the Court ensures that agencies, not courts, remain the primary fact-finders and decision-makers within their areas of expertise. This decision provides a clear, and limited, set of remedies for courts to use when faced with an opaque administrative record, thereby strengthening the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review.
Unlock the full brief for Camp v. Pitts