requests a judgment ordering the Secretary to conduct that election. (See Compl. ¶¶ 40-45.) Second, although Defendant argues that Plaintiff needs to fulfill an additional requirement in order to be able to rely on the APA’s sovereign immunity waiver— namely, that the agency action that Plaintiff seeks to challenge must be a “final” agency action (see Def.’s Mem. at 22 n.5 (“The APA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity by providing ‘a right to judicial review of all ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’” (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 175, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997), the D.C. Circuit rejected this very argument in Trudeau v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C.Cir.2006). See id. at 187 (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Plaintiff Mackinac Tribe
holding a rod to be final agency action holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action holding that the designation of the rod as final agency action under the apa is generally recognized holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action holding that apa  702s waiver of sovereign immunity applies regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes final agency action 