Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
When made by administrative agencies, decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are subjected to arbitrary and capricious review. Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review."
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
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.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ...
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.
Regents of the University of California on June 18, 2020 and, holding that the Duke memorandum was "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA", vacated the preliminary injuction issued on February 13, 2018 and remanded to DHS for further proceedings.
Based on its own review and public comments, the EPA then grants the waiver unless it has determined that California's requested standards were "arbitrary and capricious" in their findings, that the standards are not needed to "meet compelling and extraordinary conditions", or otherwise are inconsistent with other aspects of the CAA. [30]
Rational basis review is not a genuine effort to determine the legislature's actual reasons for enacting a statute, nor to inquire into whether a statute does in fact further a legitimate end of government. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every conceivable justification for it is a ...