Darby v. Cisneros

Darby v. Cisneros
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 1993 Decided June 21, 1993
Full case name	R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry Gabriel Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
Citations	509 U.S. 137 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2539
Prior history	Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Holding
Federal courts cannot require exhaustion of administrative remedies unless mandated by statute or agency rules.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority	Blackmun, joined by unanimous court
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot require that a plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review when exhaustion of remedies is not required by either administrative rules or statute.

Facts of the case

R. Gordon Darby, a real estate developer in South Carolina, was banned from participating in Department of Housing and Urban Development programs for 18 months. He and others files in federal court even though they had not exhausted the internal HUD review process. Henry Cisneros, as HUD Secretary, was the respondent.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509
• List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court

Further reading

• Funk, William (2000). "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – New Dimensions since Darby". Pace Environmental Law Review 18 (1): 1. ISSN 0738-6206.
• Hawkens, E. R. (2000). "The Exhaustion Component of the Mindes Justiciability Test is Not Laid to Rest by Darby v. Cisneros". Military Law Review 166: 67. ISSN 0026-4040.
• Zgrodnik, A. H. (1993). "Darby v. Cisneros: A Codification of the Common-Law Doctrine of Exhaustion under Section 10 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act". Ohio Northern University Law Review 20: 367. ISSN 0094-534X.