Visitors exploring this tag will discover in-depth resources about the various systems and processes designed to monitor and regulate judicial conduct within the legal framework. Content includes discussions on checks and balances, the role of ethics committees, and the impact of judicial review, providing insights into how these mechanisms uphold accountability and integrity in the judiciary. Through expert interviews and articles, the section aims to educate on the importance of maintaining fairness and impartiality in judicial proceedings.
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 »
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 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 »
