If a federal agency allows only written comments during rule-making, can a contesting suit be successful?

In the context of federal agency rule-making, if an agency has established a procedure that permits only written comments, this generally adheres to the requirements set forth by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA stipulates that agencies must provide a notice-and-comment period where interested parties can submit their input on proposed rules. While the opportunity for oral comments is beneficial and can enhance the transparency and inclusivity of the rule-making process, the absence of oral comments does not inherently render the process invalid or subject to a successful challenge in court.

Federal courts typically show deference to agency rule-making processes as long as they comply with statutory requirements. If the agency has followed the necessary steps, including notification of the proposed rule and allowing for written comments within a reasonable timeframe, a lawsuit contesting the validity of the rule based solely on the absence of oral comments is unlikely to succeed. Courts generally do not mandate oral commentary as a requirement of meaningful participation, as the main goal is to ensure that agencies consider and respond to public input.

The effectiveness of a challenge based on the procedures followed by the agency tends to depend on whether the procedural requirements outlined in the APA or other applicable statutes have been met. In conclusion, if an agency has complied with the legal requirements and incorporated