The APA provides that '[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof,' 5 U. S. C. § 702, and we have read the APA as embodying a 'basic presumption of judicial review,' Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967). This is 'just' a presumption, however, Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349 (1984), and under § 701(a)(2) agency action is not subject to judicial review 'to the extent that' such action 'is committed to agency discretion by law.' As explained in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 830 (1985), § 701(a)(2) makes it clear that 'review is not to be had' in those rare circumstances where the relevant statute 'is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.' See also Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 599-600 (1988); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410 (1971). 'In such a case, the statute ('law') can be taken to ...