Arbitrary And Capricious

The arbitrary and capricious standard is a deferential judicial review test requiring agencies to show a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made. Courts typically uphold the action if it considered relevant factors and explained its reasoning, but will vacate decisions that ignore evidence or rely on improper factors. This article defines […]

The definition of “arbitrary and capricious” varies across U.S. federal, 50 state, and other jurisdictions, mainly by how much deference courts give agencies and what explanation the record must show. Federal courts apply the APA’s “reasoned decisionmaking” review, while states and common-law systems use parallel but differently framed rationality, proportionality, or Wednesbury-type tests. This article […]

Under the APA, courts can set aside energy sector regulations if an agency fails to offer a reasoned explanation or ignores key evidence. This “arbitrary and capricious” scrutiny is increasingly used to challenge FERC, EPA, and state commission actions affecting markets and environmental compliance. This article explains the standard, common litigation triggers, and practical implications […]

“Arbitrary and capricious” is a U.S. administrative law standard in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) allowing courts to invalidate agency actions lacking a rational, fact-based explanation. It applies when an agency ignores key evidence, contradicts its record, or fails to explain a policy change. This article explains the test, common examples, and how courts review agency […]

You can challenge an arbitrary and capricious agency decision by filing an APA suit in federal court, typically within 6 years under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Courts set aside actions that lack a rational explanation, ignore key evidence, or depart from required procedures. This article outlines legal standards, record-based tactics, and recent developments affecting these […]

In most arbitrary-and-capricious challenges, the party contesting the decision bears the burden of proof and must show the agency lacked a rational basis under the administrative record. Courts give deference and usually uphold the decision if it is reasonably explained and supported by evidence. This article explains what must be proven, what record is reviewed, […]

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 […]

To prove an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious, you generally need record-based evidence showing the agency ignored key facts, failed to consider important aspects of the problem, offered an explanation contrary to the evidence, or departed from policy without a reasoned basis. This showing is typically made from the administrative record under the APA’s […]