The outcome:
We affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the
unreviewability dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenges to the
instructions as being contrary to statute and arbitrary and
capricious. No constitutional challenges are presented.
But we reverse the unreviewability dismissal of plaintiffs’
challenge to the instructions as having been improperly
issued because they had to be, but were not, promulgated
through notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
§ 553. That challenge, we also hold, at least Apple had
standing to present. We remand for further proceedings on
the lone surviving challenge. Like the district court, we do
not reach the merits of that challenge.
Of note
We then address the remaining challenge (concerning the absence of
notice-and-comment rulemaking). We hold that neither
§ 701(a)(1) nor § 701(a)(2) bars review of the third challenge and that at least Apple has standing to press it. We
therefore reverse the dismissal as to the third challenge
and remand
No comments:
Post a Comment