norml23 - Page 78

 reasoned opinions. When administrators provide a
 framework for principled decision-making, the
 result will be to diminish the importance of
 judicial review by enhancing the integrity of the
 administrative process, and to improve the quality
 of judicial review in those cases where judicial
 review is sought.
 Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 584., 597_98
 (1 971 ) (footnotes omitted).
 Although, as Professor Davis notes in the Treatise, Vol. 2 at page
 244., the post-19374 cases form a rather "consistent body of law" with
 respect to review of affirmative agency decisions, it is necessary to
 comment briefly on two important decisions which preceded the recent
 pronouncement in Industrial Union Department, supra. In Morton v. Ruiz,
 4t 5 U.S. 199 (1 974), a unanimous Supreme Court established a "main
 fountain-head for new law that limits agency discretion," Treatise,
 Vol. 2, at 161o The court held that: (1) the power to administer a
 program "necessarily requires.., the making of rufeSo" 41 5 U.S. at
 23t. Second, the court held that agency policy is "ineffective, unless
 it is embodied in a legislative-type rule." Id. at 2.36. Finally, the
 court held that the APA forbids "unpubJished ad hoc determinations."
 ld.
 Next, in Dunlop vo Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), the court
 extended the principles previousJy developed to require judicial review
 of the refusal of an agency head to exercise his discretionary powers
 (in that case, the refusal to exercise what has historically been
 regarded as the quintessential example of prosecutorial discretion: the
 decision whether to prosecute). Both the District Court and the Third
 Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the provision in the Labor-
 Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 U.SoCo 482(b)) that the
 Secretary of Labor "shalF' investigate complaints of violations and
 "shai_ bring a civil action, subject the Secretary's decision not to
 bring suit to judicial review." The Supreme Court affirmed the tower
 court decisions, with the comment that the Secretary bears the heavy
 burden of overcoming the strong presumption" that judicial review of
 his non-action is appropriate. 421 U.S. at 567.
 D. Conclusions