Darby v. Cisneros

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Darby v. Cisneros

|ArgueDate=March 22

|ArgueYear=1993

|DecideDate=June 21

|DecideYear=1993

|FullName=R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry Gabriel Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

|USVol=509

|USPage=137

|ParallelCitations=113 S. Ct. 2539; 125 L. Ed. 2d 113

|Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

|Subsequent=

|Holding=Federal courts cannot require exhaustion of administrative remedies unless mandated by statute or agency rules.

|Majority=Blackmun

|JoinMajority=unanimous

|LawsApplied=Administrative Procedure Act (APA), {{usc|5|701|706}}

}}

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot require that a plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review when exhaustion of remedies is not required by either administrative rules or statute.

Facts of the case

R. Gordon Darby, a real estate developer in South Carolina, was banned from participating in Department of Housing and Urban Development programs for 18 months. He and others filed in federal court even though they had not exhausted the internal HUD review process. Henry Cisneros, as HUD Secretary, was the respondent.