Case Citator › Camp v. Pitts

Camp v. Pitts

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
411 U.S. 138
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
80 of 80
Citing cases (total)
2,333
Treatment dates
1977
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Camp v. Pitts has been abrogated in part on jurisdictional grounds: all 80 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Califano v. Sanders rejected Camp's implication that the Administrative Procedure Act independently grants subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action.
More on how this was screened

Camp's separate holdings limiting APA review to the existing administrative record, permitting necessary agency explanations, and requiring remand rather than a new judicial record remain in regular use and were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC. The other citing opinions applied those holdings or placed adverse history for Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe and unrelated authorities near their Camp citations.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,333 later cases cite Camp v. Pitts; 80 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Camp v. Pitts?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Camp's implication that the Administrative Procedure Act itself grants subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action.

    Califano v. Sanders · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We thus conclude that the APA does not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Camp v. Pitts and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace