Judicial Review

Explore a comprehensive range of resources related to judicial review, including expert articles, in-depth video interviews with attorneys, and clear legal glossary definitions. This category provides valuable insights into the process by which courts evaluate the legality of government actions and legislation, ensuring that visitors gain a thorough understanding of their rights and the judicial system. Stay informed about key cases, legal precedents, and the implications of judicial review on individual rights and public policy.

20 posts

Procedural vs. substantive arbitrary and capricious review: What’s the difference?

November 20, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Procedural arbitrary and capricious review targets flaws in the agency’s decisionmaking process (e.g., ignored comments or inadequate explanation), while substantive review targets the reasonableness of the outcome based on the record. Both apply under the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” standard in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This article explains the differences, key cases, […]

Administrative Law Constitutional Law

Circuit court interpretations: Analyzing arbitrary and capricious rulings

November 19, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard appears in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and requires agencies to show a reasoned explanation grounded in the record. Circuit courts apply it by checking whether the agency considered relevant factors and explained departures from prior policy without ignoring key evidence. This article compares major circuit approaches and what they […]

Administrative Law Constitutional Law

Landmark Supreme Court cases shaping the arbitrary and capricious standard

November 19, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The Supreme Court has shaped the arbitrary and capricious standard through at least 5 major decisions, including Overton Park, State Farm, Chevron, Fox Television, and Encino Motorcars. These cases require agencies to offer reasoned explanations and consider relevant factors under the Administrative Procedure Act. This article summarizes each ruling’s rule and its practical impact on […]

Administrative Law Constitutional Law

Arbitrary and capricious vs. substantial evidence: Key differences explained

November 19, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The key difference is that “arbitrary and capricious” is a deferential reasoned-decisionmaking check, while “substantial evidence” requires enough record support that a reasonable mind could accept. Arbitrary-and-capricious review focuses on the agency’s explanation; substantial-evidence review focuses on evidentiary support in the administrative record. This article explains when each standard applies and how courts evaluate agency […]

Administrative Law Constitutional Law

What level of deference do courts provide to agency decisions under the arbitrary and capricious standard?

November 18, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, courts apply a deferential review and will uphold an agency action if it shows a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Courts do not substitute their judgment, but they will set aside decisions lacking reasoned explanation, ignoring key evidence, or violating law. This article explains […]

Administrative Law Age-Related Legal Issues

Key examples of arbitrary and capricious agency actions in recent cases

November 5, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Courts can set aside agency decisions as “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act when the agency fails to give a reasoned explanation, ignores important evidence, or departs from prior policy without justification. Recent rulings show judges closely scrutinizing rulemakings, enforcement actions, and benefits determinations for logical consistency and record support. This article highlights […]

Administrative Law Civil Litigation

Understanding the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard in Law

November 4, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The “arbitrary and capricious” standard is a deferential legal test courts use to uphold an agency decision unless it lacks a rational basis or ignores important facts. It commonly applies in judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, where challengers must show the agency failed to consider relevant evidence, relied on improper factors, or offered […]

Constitutional Law Executive Branch

How did the Supreme Court’s 2024 rulings expand presidential immunity and impact federal regulatory authority?

November 1, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

In 2024, the Supreme Court expanded presidential immunity by shielding core official acts and limiting when prosecutors may use or probe them, while also weakening federal agencies’ rulemaking power by overruling Chevron deference. Together, these decisions shift power toward the presidency and courts and away from executive-branch regulators. This article explains the key holdings, practical […]

← Previous 1 2