The case of National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interior et al., 2002, revolved around a dispute over concession contracts in national parks. The National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA) challenged regulations implemented by the Department of the Interior that allowed for competitive bidding on these contracts and provided new contract holders with protection from "possessory interest" claims by previous holders. The NPHA argued that this violated their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, it was determined that judicial review was not available under APA because Congress had committed such matters to agency discretion through legislation known as Concessions Policy Act. Therefore, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Department of Interior stating there were no legal standards against which to judge its exercise of discretion regarding possessory interest issue.

In the dissenting opinion for National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interior et al., Justice Stevens argued that the Court's decision to remand the case back to lower courts was unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources. He contended that there was no ambiguity in Congress' intent when it passed legislation allowing concession contracts within national parks, which clearly indicated that such contracts were not subject to review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA). According to him, this interpretation is consistent with both statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, he believed that instead of sending it back for further proceedings, Supreme Court should have affirmed lower court’s judgment directly dismissing petitioner's APA claim.