administrative law principles

Arbitrary and capricious review in financial regulation enforcement

Administrative Law, Banking/Finance/Securities, Federal Law, Financial Law, Government Relations, Judicial Review, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

Courts apply “arbitrary and capricious” review under APA §706(2)(A) to set aside financial enforcement actions lacking reasoned explanation. Agencies must connect facts to conclusions and address key evidence and arguments. This article explains the standard, common enforcement pitfalls, and practical implications for regulated entities. The application of arbitrary and capricious review in financial regulation enforcement […]

Arbitrary and capricious review in financial regulation enforcement Read More »

Agency discretion limits under arbitrary and capricious review

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Court Decision, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Review, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

Under the APA, courts set aside agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Agencies must show a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, consider relevant factors, and explain departures from prior policy. This article outlines how that

Agency discretion limits under arbitrary and capricious review Read More »

The hard look doctrine’s role in arbitrary and capricious determinations

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Review, Legal Commentary, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Regulatory Compliance, Supreme Court Decisions / Jack Gilbert

Under the APA, courts apply the hard look doctrine to enforce the “arbitrary and capricious” standard by requiring agencies to give a reasoned explanation grounded in the record. If an agency ignores important factors, contradicts evidence, or fails to address alternatives, the action can be set aside. This article explains the doctrine’s origins, how courts

The hard look doctrine’s role in arbitrary and capricious determinations Read More »

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

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,

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