AL - JUDICIAL REVIEW Flashcards
Availability of Judicial Review
In order to obtain judicial review of an AGENCY ACTION, a plaintiff must show JURISIDICTION, REVIEWABILITY, STANDING and TIMLINESS.
Jurisdiction re Federal Agencies
Whenever possible, courts interpret an agency’s governing statute to require review in a federal court of appeals; otherwise, federal district courts have jurisdiction over review of federal agency action.
Reviewability
Under the APA, agency action made reviewable by STATUTE and FINAL AGENCY ACTION for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to JUDICIAL review. An agency adjudication is final when the agency’s adjudicatory process is complete, including any internal agency review.
STANDING
To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they have suffered:
- an INJURY IN FACT (they were significantly negatively affected by the challenged conduct)
- that is FAIRLY TRACEABLE (conduct actually caused the injury [but for]) to the challenged conduct and
- REDRESSABLE by a favorable outcome (remedy sought will redress the injury).
TIMELINESS
Judicial review may only be sought when:
1) a claim is RIPE,
2) administrative remedies have been EXAUSHTED, and
3) before the claim becomes MOOT (no longer a live controversy)
SCOPE OF REVIEW
In judicial review, the court will look to see if the agency’s actions involve a question of fact, a question of law, or, most commonly, a mixed question of fact and law. Questions of fact focus on the facts or information in the record, which the agency considered in making its decision. Questions of law refer to constitutional issues (like due process during an agency hearing or right to privacy), or whether the agency is acting within its statutory authority.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD OF REVIEW
An agency’s decision will be upheld where its conclusion is reasonable in light of the evidence presented in the whole record. If the agency’s decision is reasonable, then the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS STANDARD OF REVIEW
The reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
CONTRARY TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The APA provides that the reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity
CONTRARY TO PROCEDURE REQ. BY LAW
The reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be without observance of procedure required by law.
EVIDENCE RULES
The APA provides that any oral or documentary evidence may be received but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. While in a criminal case, evidence obtained without a warrant is inadmissible as fruit of an illegal search, the “exclusionary rule” generally does not apply to administrative adjudication.
BIAS OR PREJUDICE
Any complaint of bias or prejudice by the administrative law judge or agency decision maker requires disqualification of that individual under the APA. However, if either of these parties make general statements regarding their views on an individual question of law or policy, it will not require disqualification. Prejudgment of the facts does require that the decision maker step aside
TRIAL DE NOVO
The reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
CHEVRON DEFERENCE
The Chevron “rule” is that courts must defer to administrative agencies whenever their interpretation of an ambiguous statute is at least “reasonable.”
Mathews v. Elridge
In deciding whether a due process hearing should occur before or after adverse government action (license revocations, etc.) the court weighs (1) the private interest at stake in the case, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of the claimant’s rights through the current procedures, and (3) the government interests involved, such as controlling the administrative costs of agency programs.
