When Agency Action Is “Final” and Whether Policy Guidelines Constitute Binding Rules The District Court had jurisdiction over appellants’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000). Appellants’ cause of action rests solely on the APA. Under the APA, “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 704 (emphasis added). As we noted in Reliable Automatic Sprinkler, “in cases such as this one, in which judicial review is sought under the APA rather than a particular statute prescribing judicial review, the requirement of final agency action is not jurisdictional.” 324 F.3d at 731 (relying on Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (<HOLDING>)); see also Md. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dep’t of
holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review holding that the apa does not afford an implied grant of subjectmatter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case