8.4 Judicial review of agency actions

Judicial review of agency actions is a crucial aspect of U.S. administrative law. It allows courts to examine and potentially overturn decisions made by government agencies, ensuring they stay within legal bounds and follow proper procedures.

This power stems from the Constitution and key court cases. It covers various agency activities, from formal rulings to policy statements. Courts apply different standards depending on the action, balancing respect for agency expertise with the need for legal accountability.

Origins of judicial review

• Judicial review forms a cornerstone of the United States legal system, allowing courts to scrutinize and potentially invalidate actions of other government branches
• This concept plays a crucial role in maintaining checks and balances within the U.S. government, ensuring adherence to constitutional principles and statutory requirements

Constitutional and statutory basis

Top images from around the web for Constitutional and statutory basis

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

Top images from around the web for Constitutional and statutory basis

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

• Rooted in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary and its powers
• Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the Supreme Court's authority to review and strike down unconstitutional laws
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 codified judicial review of agency actions, providing statutory framework
• Judicial review extends to both constitutional questions and statutory interpretation of agency actions

Historical development

• Evolved from English common law tradition of courts reviewing executive actions
• Federalist Papers (78) argued for judicial review as a check on legislative and executive powers
• Early Supreme Court cases (Fletcher v. Peck, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee) further solidified judicial review doctrine
• Expansion of administrative state in 20th century led to increased focus on judicial review of agency actions

Scope of judicial review

• Judicial review encompasses a wide range of agency actions and decisions, serving as a critical oversight mechanism
• Courts must determine which agency actions are subject to review and to what extent, balancing agency expertise with legal accountability

Types of agency actions

• Formal adjudications involve trial-like procedures and result in binding decisions on specific parties
• Informal adjudications include less formal decision-making processes (license approvals, benefit determinations)
• Rulemaking actions create, modify, or repeal regulations with general applicability
• Policy statements and interpretive rules provide agency guidance but lack force of law
• Enforcement actions involve agency decisions to pursue or not pursue violations of laws or regulations

Reviewable vs non-reviewable actions

• Presumption of reviewability for most agency actions under the APA
• Non-reviewable actions include:
  • Those precluded by statute from judicial review
  • Actions committed to agency discretion by law (Heckler v. Chaney)
• Political question doctrine limits review of certain executive branch decisions (foreign policy, national security)
• Courts generally cannot review internal agency management decisions or preliminary procedural rulings

Standards of review

• Standards of review determine the level of deference courts give to agency decisions and findings
• Different standards apply depending on the type of agency action and the nature of the legal question at issue

Arbitrary and capricious standard

• Applied to informal agency actions and policy decisions under APA § 706(2)(A)
• Requires agencies to articulate a rational connection between facts found and choices made
• Courts examine whether agency considered relevant factors and provided reasonable explanation
• Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. established "hard look" review
• Does not allow courts to substitute their judgment for that of the agency

Substantial evidence test

• Used for formal agency adjudications and formal rulemaking under APA § 706(2)(E)
• Requires review of the whole record to determine if a reasonable mind might accept evidence as adequate
• More stringent than arbitrary and capricious standard but still deferential to agency expertise
• Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB clarified that courts must consider evidence supporting and contradicting agency finding

De novo review

• Courts review legal questions and statutory interpretations without deference to agency's view
• Applied to constitutional questions and pure issues of law
• Also used when agency lacks authority to make legal interpretations or when interpretations lack force of law
• Skidmore v. Swift & Co. established factors for persuasive deference in de novo review

Chevron deference doctrine

• Landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) established framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations
• Chevron deference significantly impacts the relationship between courts and administrative agencies in statutory interpretation

Two-step Chevron analysis

• Step One determines if Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue
  • If congressional intent is clear, both court and agency must give effect to unambiguous statutory language
• Step Two applies if statute is silent or ambiguous on the specific issue
  • Court defers to agency's interpretation if it is based on a permissible construction of the statute
  • Agency's interpretation need not be the only possible interpretation or even the best one
• United States v. Mead Corp. added "Step Zero" to determine if Chevron applies based on congressional intent

Limitations of Chevron deference

• Major questions doctrine limits Chevron's application to questions of vast economic or political significance
• Agencies must have statutory authority to interpret with force of law (formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking)
• Auer deference applies to agency interpretations of their own regulations, but has been narrowed by Kisor v. Wilkie
• Some scholars and judges argue for limiting or overturning Chevron due to separation of powers concerns

Standing and justiciability

• Standing and justiciability doctrines determine who can bring a case to court and what types of disputes courts can hear
• These concepts are crucial in administrative law for determining when parties can challenge agency actions

Article III requirements

• Constitutional standing requires plaintiffs to show:
  • Injury in fact (concrete and particularized, actual or imminent)
  • Causation (injury fairly traceable to challenged action)
  • Redressability (likelihood that favorable decision will redress injury)
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established strict standing requirements for environmental and regulatory cases
• Massachusetts v. EPA recognized special standing for states in certain circumstances

Prudential standing considerations

• Zone of interests test requires plaintiff's interests to fall within zone protected by statute or constitutional provision
• Generalized grievances typically insufficient for standing (no taxpayer standing to challenge general government actions)
• Third-party standing generally prohibited, with exceptions (close relationship, hindrance to rights holder)
• Organizational standing allows associations to sue on behalf of members under certain conditions
• Prudential standing can be modified or eliminated by Congress through statutory provisions

Timing of judicial review

• Timing doctrines determine when a case is ripe for judicial review and ensure efficient use of judicial resources
• These concepts prevent premature judicial intervention and ensure that administrative processes are respected

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

• Requires parties to pursue all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review
• Exceptions include:
  • Futility (when administrative process would be clearly useless)
  • Irreparable harm (when delay would cause severe and immediate injury)
  • Bias or predetermination by agency decision-makers
• McCarthy v. Madigan outlined factors courts consider in applying exhaustion doctrine
• Statutory exhaustion requirements may be more stringent than common law doctrine

Ripeness and mootness doctrines

• Ripeness ensures that cases are sufficiently developed for judicial review
  • Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner established two-part test: fitness of issues for judicial decision and hardship to parties of withholding review
• Mootness prevents courts from deciding cases that no longer present live controversies
  • Exceptions include: capable of repetition yet evading review, voluntary cessation of challenged conduct
• Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club applied ripeness doctrine to challenge of agency land use plans
• Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. clarified voluntary cessation exception to mootness

Remedies in administrative cases

• Remedies in administrative law cases aim to correct agency errors, enforce compliance, and provide relief to affected parties
• Courts must balance the need for effective relief with respect for agency expertise and separation of powers

Injunctive relief

• Preliminary injunctions preserve status quo pending final decision on merits
• Permanent injunctions prohibit agency from taking certain actions or require specific performance
• Courts apply four-factor test from eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. for injunctive relief:
  • Irreparable harm
  • Inadequacy of legal remedies
  • Balance of hardships
  • Public interest considerations

Declaratory judgments

• Declaratory Judgment Act allows courts to declare rights and legal relations of parties
• Used to clarify legal status or rights without ordering specific action
• Can be particularly useful in pre-enforcement challenges to agency rules
• MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. clarified standards for declaratory judgment jurisdiction

Remand to agency

• Courts often remand cases to agencies for further proceedings or reconsideration
• Remand without vacatur allows agency action to remain in effect during reconsideration
• SEC v. Chenery Corp. established principle that courts should not substitute their judgment for agency's reasoning
• Remand may include specific instructions or timelines for agency action

Judicial review procedures

• Procedural aspects of judicial review ensure fair and efficient resolution of administrative law cases
• These procedures govern how cases are brought to court and what evidence can be considered

Venue and jurisdiction

• Federal district courts have general jurisdiction over APA cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
• Some statutes provide for direct review in courts of appeals (Clean Air Act, Federal Communications Act)
• Venue typically proper where defendant resides or where substantial part of events occurred
• Transfer of venue possible under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience of parties and witnesses
• Multidistrict litigation procedures can consolidate related cases from multiple districts

Administrative record

• Judicial review generally limited to administrative record that was before agency at time of decision
• Record includes all materials considered by agency in making decision
• Supplementation of record allowed in limited circumstances:
  • When agency failed to consider relevant factors
  • To explain technical terms or complex subject matter
  • To show bad faith or improper behavior
• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe emphasized importance of "whole record" review

Impact of judicial review

• Judicial review significantly influences administrative governance and policy implementation
• Courts play a crucial role in shaping agency behavior and ensuring accountability

Policy implications

• Judicial review can delay or prevent implementation of agency policies and regulations
• Threat of review may lead agencies to adopt more conservative or well-documented approaches
• Courts influence policy through statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis
• Judicial decisions can prompt legislative responses or amendments to agency authority
• Review process provides avenue for public participation and challenge to agency actions

Agency decision-making effects

• Agencies anticipate potential judicial review in structuring decision-making processes
• "Ossification" of rulemaking may occur as agencies seek to create "bulletproof" records
• Increased emphasis on thorough explanations and responses to public comments
• Agencies may rely more on informal guidance to avoid rigorous review of formal rules
• Internal agency procedures often designed to withstand judicial scrutiny (legal review, impact analyses)

Recent developments

• Evolving doctrines and new challenges to administrative authority shape contemporary judicial review landscape
• Courts and Congress continue to grapple with the proper balance of power between agencies and other branches

Major questions doctrine

• Limits Chevron deference for questions of vast economic or political significance
• King v. Burwell applied doctrine to Affordable Care Act subsidies question
• West Virginia v. EPA further developed doctrine in context of climate change regulations
• Requires clear congressional authorization for agency actions on major questions
• Critics argue doctrine lacks clear definition and may unduly restrict agency authority

Challenges to agency authority

• Nondelegation doctrine revival attempts seek to limit Congress's ability to delegate power to agencies
• Gundy v. United States signaled potential willingness of some justices to strengthen nondelegation principle
• Appointments Clause challenges question legitimacy of agency decision-makers (Lucia v. SEC)
• Removal power debates focus on president's ability to control executive agencies (Seila Law LLC v. CFPB)
• Increasing scrutiny of agency use of guidance documents and interpretive rules (Kisor v. Wilkie)