Arbitrary And Capricious Review: Summary Judgment

The arbitrary and capricious standard is a form of judicial review that evaluates whether an agency's actions or decisions were based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and supported by substantial evidence. It assesses whether the decision was not just a mere whim but grounded in rationality and logical reasoning.

This standard is typically applied in cases involving agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly where summary judgment is sought to challenge those actions. It examines whether the agency's interpretation or application of law was reasonably supported by evidence in the administrative record.

• Reasonableness of the agency's decision
• Substantial evidence supporting the decision
• Whether the agency considered all relevant factors
• Clarity and coherence of the rationale provided
• Compliance with legal standards and procedures

• Ensure that all relevant evidence is submitted to the court to demonstrate the decision's rational basis.
• Closely review the administrative record to identify key factors considered by the agency.
• Articulate clearly any legal standards that may not have been appropriately followed by the agency.
• When preparing a summary judgment motion, emphasize inconsistencies or gaps in the agency's reasoning to support your argument.
• Be mindful of the burden of proof in arguing that an agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

The arbitrary and capricious standard is less deferential than the abuse of discretion standard, which allows broader judicial latitude in reviewing the reasonableness of choices made by lower courts or agencies. Conversely, de novo review allows courts to reexamine the matter entirely without deference to lower interpretations, making it a more rigorous form of scrutiny than arbitrary and capricious review.