Standards of Review for Agency Action under Administrative Law
Sure! Here's a clear overview of Standards of Review for Agency Action under Administrative Law:
Standards of Review for Agency Action
When courts review decisions or actions taken by administrative agencies, they apply different standards of review to determine whether the agency acted lawfully, reasonably, or within its authority. The choice of standard depends on the type of action and the nature of the review.
1. Chevron Deference (Chevron Two-Step Test)
Applies to: Agency interpretations of statutes they administer.
Step 1: Has Congress directly spoken on the precise issue?
If yes, the court must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
Step 2: If the statute is ambiguous, is the agency's interpretation a reasonable one?
If yes, the court defers to the agency’s interpretation, even if the court would interpret the statute differently.
Rationale: Agencies have expertise and are given leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes within their jurisdiction.
2. Arbitrary and Capricious / Reasonableness Review
Applies to: Most agency rulemakings, informal adjudications, and policy decisions.
Standard: The court asks whether the agency's action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
What courts look for:
Whether the agency considered relevant factors.
Whether the agency provided a rational explanation.
Whether the agency failed to consider important aspects of the problem.
Whether the decision is within the agency’s authority.
3. Substantial Evidence Test
Applies to: Formal agency adjudications or rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Standard: The court will uphold the agency’s findings if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Substantial evidence: More than a mere scintilla; such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
4. De Novo Review
Applies to: Pure questions of law or constitutional issues.
Standard: The court does not defer to the agency and reviews the matter afresh.
5. Clear Error Review
Applies to: Some factual findings made by agencies.
Standard: Courts will overturn agency findings only if they are clearly erroneous (not just if the court might have made a different finding).
Summary Table
| Standard | When Applied | Level of Deference | What Is Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevron Deference | Agency statutory interpretation | High | Agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes |
| Arbitrary and Capricious | Informal rulemaking, policy decisions | Moderate | Reasonableness and rationality of decision |
| Substantial Evidence | Formal adjudications | Moderate | Factual findings on the administrative record |
| De Novo | Pure legal or constitutional questions | None | Court reviews issue anew |
| Clear Error | Some factual findings | Moderate | Court overturns only if clear error |
RELATED Blog
0 comments