administrative law | Attorneys.Media

What is the burden of proof for someone challenging an agency’s decision?

Administrative Law, Civil Law, Court Decision, Evidence Handling, Government Relations, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Legal Representation, Legal Resolution, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

In most APA cases, the challenger bears the burden of proof and must show the agency action is unlawful under a deferential standard (often “arbitrary and capricious”). Courts generally presume the agency acted properly and review the administrative record rather than retrying facts. This article explains the main standards of review, common arguments, and when […]

What is the burden of proof for someone challenging an agency’s decision? Read More »

How Much Deference Do Courts Give to Agency Decisions Under This Standard?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Misconduct, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Legal Resolution, Regulatory Compliance, Trial Procedures / Jack Gilbert

After Loper Bright (2024), courts give agencies 0 binding Chevron deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Judges apply independent judgment, giving only Skidmore-style respect based on an agency’s reasoning, consistency, and expertise. This article explains how that standard works and what it means for litigating agency actions. The question of how much deference courts give to

How Much Deference Do Courts Give to Agency Decisions Under This Standard? Read More »

Remedies for Capricious Government Actions

Legal Remedies for Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Actions

Administrative Law, Appeals, Civil Litigation, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

Courts can set aside an agency action as “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA’s 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) standard. Review focuses on whether the agency considered relevant factors and explained its decision with record evidence. This article covers the test, common grounds for reversal, and practical steps for challenging agency conduct. When government agencies overstep

Legal Remedies for Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Actions Read More »

Strategies for Proving Capricious Agency Actions

How can I effectively prepare my case to demonstrate an agency’s arbitrary and capricious decision?

Administrative Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Evidence, Government Relations, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Legal Representation, Legal Resolution, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

Prove an agency acted “arbitrary and capricious” by showing at least one APA flaw: ignored key evidence, relied on irrelevant factors, contradicted the record, or failed to explain its reasoning. Do it by compiling the full administrative record, preserving objections, and using targeted precedent and expert declarations to highlight the missing “rational connection.” This article

How can I effectively prepare my case to demonstrate an agency’s arbitrary and capricious decision? Read More »

Steps to Prevent Arbitrary Government Actions

What procedural steps must agencies follow to prevent arbitrary decisions?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Misconduct, Legal Advice and Consultation, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Regulatory Compliance / Jack Gilbert

Agencies can avoid arbitrary decisions by following mandated procedures such as notice-and-comment rulemaking, building an evidence-based administrative record, and issuing reasoned explanations grounded in statutory authority. Courts commonly review whether the agency considered relevant factors, addressed significant comments, and explained any policy change without ignoring facts. This article outlines the key procedural requirements, recordkeeping practices,

What procedural steps must agencies follow to prevent arbitrary decisions? Read More »

Unpacking Labor Law with Arbitrary Capricious Review

Labor law decisions and the arbitrary and capricious standard

Administrative Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Labor/Employment/Pension, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Professional Disputes, Trial Procedures / Jack Gilbert

Under APA review, a labor law decision is overturned only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Courts generally defer to agencies like the NLRB when they explain their reasoning and rely on record evidence. This article explains how the standard applies

Labor law decisions and the arbitrary and capricious standard Read More »

Factors Courts Consider in Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions

Administrative Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Misconduct, Legal Commentary, Legal Procedures, Professional Disputes, Trial Procedures / Jack Gilbert

Courts commonly assess 5 core factors under the arbitrary and capricious standard: reasoned explanation, consideration of relevant factors, evidentiary support, consistency with prior policy, and legal compliance. If an agency ignored key evidence or failed to explain its choice, courts may set the action aside under the APA. This article outlines each factor and how

Factors Courts Consider in Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions Read More »

Understanding Arbitrary Standard in Court

In what types of cases is the arbitrary and capricious standard most commonly used?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Government Relations, Legal Advice and Consultation, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Legal Representation, Legal Resolution, Trial Procedures / Jack Gilbert

The arbitrary and capricious standard is most commonly applied in administrative law cases reviewing federal or state agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts use it to uphold agency action unless it lacks a rational basis, ignores important evidence, or reflects an unexplained departure from established policy. This article explains the case types where

In what types of cases is the arbitrary and capricious standard most commonly used? Read More »

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard differ from other standards of review?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Federal Law, Government Relations, Judicial Misconduct, Legal Commentary, Legal Identity, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Legal Resolution / Jack Gilbert

The arbitrary and capricious standard is a deferential review that upholds an agency decision unless it lacks a rational basis in the record or ignores key facts. Unlike de novo or substantial evidence review, courts do not reweigh evidence and instead look for reasoned decision-making. This article compares it to other standards and explains when

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard differ from other standards of review? Read More »

Expertise Shapes Arbitrary Decision Challenges

Agency expertise and its impact on arbitrary and capricious determinations

Administrative Law, Appeals, Constitutional Law, Court Decision, Federal Law, Government Relations, Legal Commentary, Legal Liability, Legal Procedures, Legal Representation / Jack Gilbert

Courts often uphold agency decisions under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard when the agency demonstrates relevant technical expertise and a reasoned explanation grounded in the record. That deference is strongest in complex, science- or policy-heavy matters, but it weakens when agencies fail to explain, ignore important evidence, or contradict prior positions without justification. This article

Agency expertise and its impact on arbitrary and capricious determinations Read More »