In the 1984 case Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Chaney et al., a group of prison inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it was obligated to prevent unapproved use of drugs in executions. The FDA had previously decided not to take action against this practice, citing lack of jurisdiction over how states carry out capital punishment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FDA, stating that an agency's decision not to take enforcement action is generally immune from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This presumption may be rebutted if Congress has indicated an intent for there to be judicial review or if the agency has 'consciously and expressly' adopted a general policy so extreme as amounting to abdication its statutory responsibilities. However, neither exception applied here; thus, courts could not compel agencies like FDA into taking specific actions unless they were legally required.

In the dissenting opinion for Heckler v. Chaney, Justice Brennan argued that the Court's decision to grant absolute discretion to agencies in refusing enforcement actions was a departure from established principles of administrative law. He contended that such unreviewable discretion could lead to arbitrary and capricious decisions by these agencies. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would undermine citizens' trust in their government as it removes an essential check on agency power - judicial review. Justice Brennan also pointed out that Congress had not explicitly precluded judicial review of non-enforcement decisions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Therefore, he concluded that courts should be able to review such decisions when there is "law to apply," meaning when legal standards or guidelines can guide a court’s evaluation of an agency’s action.