census.” Although it is certainly possibly that Congress may seek to prevent the Department from conducting its plan to utilize sampling, there is no legal significance to this observation. Congress may always moot out a controversy by passing new legislation, but that fact does not shield agency action from judicial review. There is always the possibility that settlement or some external event will render a case moot, but that hardly renders the litigation nonjusticiable before that event occurs. If the government’s view were correct, then no agency action could ever be reviewed so long as Congress might intervene by passing new legislation that might overrule the final agency determination. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 175, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Duke Power Co. v. Carolina
holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision holding that plaintiff could not have been surprised that trial court would scrutinize liquidated damages provision prior to enforcement even though the issue of the enforceability of the provision was not raised as an affirmative defense holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding case ripe for review even though provision at issue would not take effect until three and a half years after the courts decision during which time congress could have repealed the provision