The Court explained the considerations behind this view in Wayte: This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake. 470 U.S. at 607, 105 S.Ct. 1524. These considerations apply as well to the administrative charging decisions of the Secretary of Labor. And we have previously found the traditional nonreviewability of prosecutorial charging decisions applicable to administrative cases. See Drake, 291 F.3d at 71 (<HOLDING>); Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v.
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding that exercise of prosecutorial discretion was not subject to judicial review absent a constitutional claim or question of law holding that the faas action in this case was  analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion  and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse