The agency decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise Judicial Review- Arbitrary Reviewing courts should Baltimore Gas & & capricious remember that agency’s Electric (1983): are acting within an area of deferring to the expertise. The courts only commission, the task is to determine court stressed that whether the commission the issue was one on has considered the relevant the frontiers of sciene factors and articulated a and a reviewing court rational connection should be at its most between the facts found deferential when and the choice made. reviewing scientific determinations Judicial Review- Arbitrary An agency decision that is Bluewater Network v & capricious not supported by an EPA: remanding to explanation will be the EPOA to clarify its considered arbitrary & statutory and capricious. The explanation evindentiary basis of need not be absolutely the assumptions and certain, nor is precision analysis and evidence required. Only a reasonable underlying the explanation to support decisions decisions/determinations. Judicial Review- Arbitrary New England Health NOTE- some courts will view & capricious Care Employees v inferences that agency’s make NLRB: Agency’s as factual- and thus subject to decision was substantial evidence, but arbitrary & here, the court views it as part capricious because of its reasoning- so it is part of failed to consider arbitrary & capricious another option (state farm factors). Rulemaking Rulemaking authority must National Petroleum be delegated to the Refiners: construing agencies by Congress general grants of because agencies have no rulemaking authority inherent authority to as confined to promulgate rules. establishing Historically, courts procedures for required the authority to implementing come from substantive adjudication or other provisions rather than a agency general grant of responsibilities. rulemaking authority. (Massachusettes v EPA). See also Dupont
The agency decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise Judicial Review- Arbitrary & capricious Reviewing courts should remember that agency’s are acting within an area of expertise. The courts only task is to determine whether the commission has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Baltimore Gas & Electric (1983): deferring to the commission, the court stressed that the issue was one on the frontiers of sciene and a reviewing court should be at its most deferential when reviewing scientific determinations Judicial Review- Arbitrary & capricious An agency decision that is not supported by an explanation will be considered arbitrary & capricious. The explanation need not be absolutely certain, nor is precision required. Only a reasonable explanation to support decisions/determinations. Bluewater Network v EPA: remanding to the EPOA to clarify its statutory and evindentiary basis of the assumptions and analysis and evidence underlying the decisions Judicial Review- Arbitrary & capricious New England Health Care Employees v NLRB: Agency’s decision was arbitrary & capricious because failed to consider another option (state farm factors). NOTE- some courts will view inferences that agency’s make as factual- and thus subject to substantial evidence, but here, the court views it as part of its reasoning- so it is part of arbitrary & capricious Rulemaking Rulemaking authority must be delegated to the agencies by Congress because agencies have no inherent authority to promulgate rules. Historically, courts required the authority to come from substantive provisions rather than a general grant of rulemaking authority. (Massachusettes v EPA). National Petroleum Refiners: construing general grants of rulemaking authority as confined to establishing procedures for implementing adjudication or other agency responsibilities. See also Dupont
Administrative%20Law%20-%20Glicksman%20-%20Fall%202010.docx