## Facts

- Congress enacted the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which created a multistep process for selecting military bases for closure.
- Under the Act, the Secretary of Defense recommends closures to an independent Base Closure and Realignment Commission, which forwards a report to the President.
- The President must approve or disapprove the Commission’s recommendations as a package and, if approving, transmits a certification to Congress.
- In 1991, the Secretary recommended closing the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; the Commission agreed and sent its report to the President.
- Before the President submitted his certification to Congress, Senator Arlen Specter and other plaintiffs sued to block implementation, alleging failures to follow statutory procedures.
- The district court dismissed, concluding the statutory scheme precluded review and that judicial intervention was barred.
- The court of appeals allowed limited review to ensure compliance with statutory procedural mandates and treated challenges to presidential action as constitutionally reviewable.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s and Commission’s actions in the base-closure process constitute “final agency action” reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
2. Whether the President’s base-closure decision is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. Whether allegations that the President failed to follow statutory procedures are judicially reviewable when framed as constitutional violations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that judicial review was unavailable.
- The Secretary’s recommendations and the Commission’s report were not “final agency action” because they had no direct legal consequences independent of the President’s decision.
- The President’s decision was not reviewable under the APA because the President is not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA.
- Recasting alleged statutory noncompliance as a constitutional claim did not create judicial review where Congress placed the final decision with the President.
- The Court rejected the view that any presidential action exceeding statutory authority is automatically a constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- APA review requires “final agency action”; agency steps that are recommendatory and lack direct consequences are not final when the process culminates in presidential action.
- The President is not an “agency” under the APA; presidential decisions are not reviewable under the APA absent clear authorization.
- A claim that an official, including the President, acted beyond statutory authority does not, without more, state a constitutional violation.
- Where a statutory scheme assigns the decisive action to the President and provides political checks, courts generally may not infer judicial review of the merits or procedures of that decision.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the 1990 Act’s base-closure process culminates in a discretionary presidential decision insulated from APA review and not subject to judicial review merely because plaintiffs allege statutory procedural violations and label them constitutional.


Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994)