rational basis review

Under this tag, visitors will discover content exploring the constitutional law principle used by courts to evaluate whether a law or governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It includes video interviews with attorneys discussing how this standard of review applies in various cases, especially those involving equal protection claims. Articles and resources provide clarity on its application in legal proceedings, enhancing understanding of its role in the judicial system.

What mistakes should I avoid when arguing an arbitrary and capricious case?

To win an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, you must show the agency lacked a rational basis, relied on improper factors, ignored key evidence, or failed to explain its decision in the administrative record. Many cases fail because litigants skip record-based proof, miss preservation and exhaustion rules, or attack the outcome rather than the agency’s reasoning process. This […]

Building a Case to Show Agency Decisions Are Unfair and Unreasonable

How can I prepare a case to show that an agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious?

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Court Procedures, Federal Crimes, Legal Ethics / Jack Gilbert

Build your arbitrary-and-capricious case by pinpointing at least one APA §706(2)(A) flaw—ignored key evidence, relied on improper factors, offered no rational explanation, or departed from precedent without reason. Center your argument on citations to the administrative record and applicable statutes/regulations, and preserve procedural objections (notice, comments, bias) early. This article outlines a step-by-step checklist, briefing

How can I prepare a case to show that an agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious? Read More »