Standard of review (administrative state)
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Standard of review, in the context of administrative law, refers to the level of deference that a federal court affords to a lower court ruling or a determination from an administrative agency when reviewing a case on appeal. Courts reviewing an administrative action will consider whether the agency’s action was arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. In applying a standard a review, the reviewing court may either uphold, alter, or overturn the action under review.[1][2][3][4]
For more information about deference doctrines in administrative law, click here.
Background
Federal appellate courts apply standards of review when examining lower court rulings or determinations from a federal agencies. There are three general standards of review: questions of law, questions of fact, and matters of procedure or discretion. There are varying sub-levels of review within each standard of review.[1][2]
The following list provides a selection of standards of review:[1][2]
Questions of law:
- De novo review: The reviewing court views the case from the same position as the lower court or agency—meaning that the reviewing court examines the case as if no prior ruling had been issued. Under this standard of review, no deference is afforded to the lower court or agency. Questions of constitutionality are generally reviewed de novo.[1][2][5]
- Reasonableness: The reasonableness standard of review requires a reviewing court to determine whether a federal agency's action demonstrates a reasonable exercise of agency discretion as supported by the record.[1]
Questions of fact:
- Clearly erroneous: The reviewing court examines the lower court's fact findings to determine whether a mistake has been committed.[1]
- Arbitrary or capricious: Under the arbitrary or capricious standard of review, a federal court determines whether a federal agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency administers is arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with the law, or implemented without following proper procedures. Arbitrary or capricious is one of two standards of review established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for federal courts to evaluate the actions of federal agencies.[1][6]
- Hard look review: Hard look review is an application of the arbitrary-or-capricious test. Under Chevron deference, federal courts defer to reasonable interpretations of statutes by federal agencies. Hard look review seeks to determine what constitutes a reasonable interpretation. Using this standard, a court reviewing an agency action ensures that the agency takes all of the relevant facts into account as part of its decision-making process.[7][8]
- Substantial evidence: The reviewing court examines the findings within a federal agency's record in order to determine whether an agency's action is backed by enough evidence to support the agency's conclusion. Substantial evidence is one of two standards of review established by the APA for federal courts to evaluate the actions of federal agencies.[1][6]
Matters of procedure or discretion:
- Abuse of discretion: The reviewing court finds that the lower court reached a conclusion in error upon weighing the relevant factors in the case. The reviewing court must uphold the lower court's conclusion if the decision falls within a range of permissible determinations.[1]
- Plain error: The plain error standard of review applies to cases in which an error in prior proceedings necessitates a review on appeal in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.[9][10]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Standard of review—definitions," accessed August 20, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, "Standards of Appellate Review in the Federal Circuit: Substance and Semantics," accessed August 20, 2018
- ↑ JUSTIA, "Administrative Law," accessed May 30, 2019
- ↑ U.S. Legal, "Standards Of Review Of Agency Actions," accessed May 30, 2019
- ↑ Seattle University Law Review, "Standard of Review (State and Federal): A Primer," accessed August 20, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 4, 2017
- ↑ Harvard Law Review, "Rationalizing Hard Look Review After the Fact," 2009
- ↑ Findlaw, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, accessed August 9, 2018
- ↑ HG Legal Resources, "What is a Standard of Review in an Appeal?" accessed August 20, 2018
- ↑ Montana Judicial Branch, "Standard of Review Handbook," accessed August 20, 2018
