Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is an extremely deferential standard. [1] In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Accordingly, arbitrary and capricious review is understood to be more deferential to agencies than substantial evidence review is. 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 that it had at the time. [19]
The standard of review for rescinding notice and comment rules is the same as that for enacting rules. The rescission was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider the alternative of requiring airbags and dismissing too quickly the benefits of automatic seat belts. Court membership; Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices
With a deadline quickly approaching, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and two other unions filed a complaint, claiming the buyout offer is "arbitrary and capricious" and ...
In addition, the business seeks a judgment that the standard is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and to set aside the Board’s ruling. Finally, they are seeking ...
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) - Important case applying the "arbitrary and capricious" review to rule-making. Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983) - "arbitrary and capricious" to change rule without considering other options for the change.
Because the agency's decision was classified as informal adjudication, the Court found that it would be reviewed under the "arbitrary or capricious" standard of review under Section 706. [ 7 ] Justice Thurgood Marshall , writing for the Court, held § 4(f) "is a plain and explicit bar to the use of federal funds for construction of highways ...
Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit ruled that EPA's new approach violated the Administrative Procedure Act for being arbitrary and capricious because Congress set a standard of "disproportionate economic hardship," whereas evaluating the costs of compliance only examines the extent of economic hardship, not its proportionality. [1]