172
Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting
tion 12 of the APA expressly stated that requirements which predated the APA and were "otherwise recognized by law" were unaffected by the Act. If Congress had meant "other-wise recognized by law" to mean "clearly recognized by law," it certainly could have said so, but did not. I also reject the notion that § 559's separate textual requirement that subsequent statutes superseding or modifying the APA must do so "expressly," 5 U. S. C. § 559, should be read to impose a nontextual clear statement rule for the antecedent common-law requirements that the APA supplemented. There is no tension whatsoever between the goals of preserving more rigorous common-law requirements at the time of enactment and ensuring that future statutes would not repeal by implication the APA's uniform supplementary procedures.
I therefore dissent for the reasons given by the Court of Appeals.
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Last modified: October 4, 2007