Standard of Judicial Review
The APA requires that in order to set aside agency action not subject to formal trial-like procedures, the court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." However, Congress may further limit the scope of judicial review of agency actions by including such language in the organic statute. To set aside formal rulemaking or formal adjudication whose procedures are trial-like (see APA, 5 U.S.C 556 - 557), a different standard of review allows courts to question agency action more strongly. For these more formal actions, agency decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence" after the court reads the "whole record," which can be thousands of pages long.
Unlike arbitrary and capricious review, substantial evidence review gives the courts leeway to consider whether an agency's factual and policy determinations were warranted in light of all the information before the agency at the time of decision. Accordingly, arbitrary and capricious review is understood to be more deferential to agencies than substantial evidence review. Arbitrary and capricious review allows agency decisions to stand as long as an agency can give a reasonable explanation for its decision based on the information it had at the time. In contrast, the courts tend to look much harder at decisions resulting from trial-like procedures because those agency procedures resemble actual trial-court procedures, but the Article III of the Constitution reserves the judicial powers for actual courts. Accordingly, courts are strict under the substantial evidence standard when agencies acts like courts because being strict gives courts final say, preventing agencies from using too much judicial power in violation of separation of powers.
The separation of powers doctrine is less of an issue with rulemaking not subject to trial-like procedures. Such rulemaking gives agencies a lot more leeway in court because it is much more like the legislative process reserved for Congress in Article II. Courts' main role here is ensuring agency rules line up with the Constitution and with agency's statutory commands from Congress. Even if a court finds a rule very unwise, it will stand as long as it is not "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."
Read more about this topic: Administrative Procedure Act
Famous quotes containing the words standard of, standard, judicial and/or review:
“There is a certain standard of grace and beauty which consists in a certain relation between our nature, such as it is, weak or strong, and the thing which pleases us. Whatever is formed according to this standard pleases us, be it house, song, discourse, verse, prose, woman, birds, rivers, trees, room, dress, and so on. Whatever is not made according to this standard displeases those who have good taste.”
—Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
“Error is a supposition that pleasure and pain, that intelligence, substance, life, are existent in matter. Error is neither Mind nor one of Mind’s faculties. Error is the contradiction of Truth. Error is a belief without understanding. Error is unreal because untrue. It is that which seemeth to be and is not. If error were true, its truth would be error, and we should have a self-evident absurdity—namely, erroneous truth. Thus we should continue to lose the standard of Truth.”
—Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910)
“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)
“Reading any collection of a man’s quotations is like eating the ingredients that go into a stew instead of cooking them together in the pot. You eat all the carrots, then all the potatoes, then the meat. You won’t go away hungry, but it’s not quite satisfying. Only a biography, or autobiography, gives you the hot meal.”
—Christopher Buckley, U.S. author. A review of three books of quotations from Newt Gingrich. “Newtie’s Greatest Hits,” The New York Times Book Review (March 12, 1995)