Slyper v. Meese

Background

A foreign doctor came to the United States for graduate medical training and sought a waiver of a federal rule that normally requires such doctors to return to their home country for two years before applying for permanent residence. The waiver can be granted on "hardship" grounds, but one condition is that the Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA) recommend a waiver. The USIA Director recommended against the waiver, and the doctor challenged that decision in court. The Court of Appeals held the Director’s choice was not subject to judicial review because the law and regulations gave no standard to judge the decision, so it was committed to agency discretion.

Reasoning

The core question was whether courts can review the USIA Director’s recommendation for abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals said no, relying on the Administrative Procedure Act’s provision that decisions committed to agency discretion are not reviewable. Two other appeals courts had agreed, while a third had disagreed, creating a split. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so the appeals court outcome stands for this case.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the immediate result is that the agency’s recommendation remains unreviewed in this instance and similar challenges in the same circuit. Foreign doctors seeking hardship waivers may face different legal rights depending on which appeals court handles their case. The denial of review is not a final decision on the legal question, so the issue could return to the high court later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial of review. He argued the Court should have agreed to hear the case to resolve the conflicting rulings among the appeals courts and to decide whether the agency’s recommendation can be reviewed by judges.