## Facts

- Overton Park is a 342-acre public park in Memphis, Tennessee.
- Federal and state officials planned a six-lane segment of Interstate 40 to run through the park, separating park areas including the zoo.
- Federal law limited parkland use for federally funded highways under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and § 138 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968.
- Those provisions barred approval of park routes if a “feasible and prudent” alternative existed; if not, approval required “all possible planning to minimize harm” to the park.
- In 1968 and 1969, the Secretary of Transportation announced agreement with, and then final approval of, the park route and design.
- The approvals were not accompanied by contemporaneous factual findings explaining the absence of feasible and prudent alternatives or the harm-minimization planning performed.
- Citizen and conservation groups sued to enjoin the project, alleging the Secretary approved the route in violation of § 4(f)/§ 138.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s approval of a highway route through a public park is judicially reviewable under APA § 701 or is “committed to agency discretion by law.”
2. What standard and scope of review applies under APA § 706 to informal agency action approving the route.
3. Whether judicial review may rest on post-litigation affidavits, or must be based on the whole administrative record before the agency at the time of decision, and whether formal findings are required.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the Secretary’s decision was reviewable under the APA because § 4(f)/§ 138 provide enforceable standards and the “committed to agency discretion” exception is narrow.
- The Court held review proceeds under APA § 706(2)(A) for arbitrariness, capriciousness, abuse of discretion, or legal error, requiring a “searching and careful” inquiry without substituting judicial judgment for agency judgment.
- The Court rejected de novo review and found the substantial-evidence test inapplicable because the decision was not made through formal adjudication or formal rulemaking.
- The Court held formal findings were not strictly required, but review could not be sustained solely by post-hoc affidavits prepared for litigation.
- The Court remanded for review based on the whole administrative record that was before the Secretary, sufficient to permit meaningful judicial evaluation under § 4(f)/§ 138.

## Legal Principles

- Agency action is not exempt from APA review as “committed to agency discretion by law” when statutes provide meaningful standards (“law to apply”); the § 701(a)(2) exception is rare and narrow.
- Under APA § 706(2)(A), courts must evaluate whether the agency acted within statutory authority, considered relevant factors, and made a rational decision supported by the record, while not replacing the agency’s policy choices with the court’s.
- Judicial review of informal agency action must be based on the contemporaneous administrative record; post-hoc rationalizations created for litigation cannot supply the agency’s reasoning.
- Under § 4(f)/§ 138, the Secretary may approve use of parkland for a federally funded highway only if no feasible and prudent alternative route exists and only after all possible planning to minimize harm has been undertaken.

## Conclusion

The Court required meaningful, record-based judicial review of the Secretary’s park-route approval and construed § 4(f)/§ 138 to tightly limit parkland intrusion, remanding for evaluation on the full administrative record under arbitrary-and-capricious review.


Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)