All Federal · Constitutional Questions
This entry discusses the Arbitrary and Capricious standard of review as it pertains to federal courts handling constitutional questions.
Source: Arbitrary And Capricious
The Arbitrary and Capricious standard of review is employed by federal courts to evaluate whether an administrative agency's decisions are founded on reasoned analysis and adhere to procedural requirements. Under this standard, courts will overturn agency actions only if they lack a reasonable basis or are not supported by evidence.
This standard is primarily utilized in the context of federal agency actions that are challenged on constitutional grounds, often involving questions of due process or equal protection. It applies when a party claims that an agency's decision is irrational or founded on irrelevant considerations, thereby infringing on constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court held that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rescission of an earlier rule was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to adequately consider important aspects of the problem.
The Arbitrary and Capricious standard is more deferential to agency decisions than strict scrutiny, which requires the government to show a compelling interest in infringing on constitutional rights. Compared to the rational basis review, which permits greater government discretion, the Arbitrary and Capricious standard still demands a reasoned explanation from the agency.