Explore comprehensive content discussing how courts apply the rational basis test to evaluate the constitutionality of laws under the Equal Protection Clause. Visitors will find video interviews with legal experts and articles dissecting the implications of this judicial standard, its role in discrimination cases, and its impact on legal precedent. This section provides a clear understanding of the minimal scrutiny applied by courts and its influence on legislative actions.
Courts apply the “arbitrary and capricious” standard under the APA, setting aside an agency decision only if it lacks a rational basis or ignores key facts. This is a highly deferential review focused on whether the agency considered relevant factors and reasonably explained its choice. This article covers how the test operates in bid protests, […]
In most arbitrary-and-capricious challenges under the federal APA, the party attacking the agency action bears the burden of showing the decision lacked a rational basis in the administrative record. Courts generally defer to agency expertise but will set aside actions that ignore important evidence, rely on impermissible factors, or offer an unexplained departure from prior
What is the burden of proof for challenging an arbitrary and capricious agency decision? Read More »
