non-enforcement/inaction presumptively unreviewable(See Heckler v. Chaney (1985): prison inmates petitioned FDA that capital punishment drugs violated Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Court upheld decision not enforce)
-Dissent (Marshall): should review but extremely differential – just need a reason
-JM – may be that this wins out over Dunlop but probably irrelevant because have broad discretion
-But decision may be reviewed under narrow standard of just requiring reason (See Dunlop v. Bachowski (1975): required reason for decision not to bring action to prosecute election irregularity
-review is extremely limited
-question is whether it’s rational
-problem under statutes w/ no obligation to give reason is that if you say anything, can review questionable basis and then get review
-reasons not to interfere
-shortage of resources so would effect capacity to administer mandate
-decisions require agency expertise and coordination
-no need for judicial relief – not exercising coercive power over liberty or property rights
-separation of powers and political accountability – discretion
-interference might undermine rather than promote enforcement
-possibility for private alternative relief (e.g., torts)