What are the plausible grounds for judicial review

Question 1

what are the 4 plausible grounds for judicial review

Answer 1

1) Constitutional Review
2) Jurisdictional Review
3) Procedural review
4) Merits Review

Question 2

What does identifying the proper scopes of review mean?

Answer 2

the scope of review and level of DEFERENCE accorded to the agency

Question 3

Constitutional Review scope and deference?

Answer 3

Scope: Substituted Judgment (de Novo)
deference: NO deference

Question 4

Jurisidctional Review scope and deference

Answer 4

Scope: substituted judgment (De Novo)

deference : Some deference

Question 5

Procedural Review scope and deference

Answer 5

Scope: substituted judgment (de Novo)
deference: NO deference

Question 6

Merits review scope and deference

Answer 6

1) Contested Case:
Scope: substantial evidence test

2) Rulemaking and other agency action
Abuse of Discretion, high deference

Question 7

what is the merits review for contested cases?

Answer 7

substantial evidence test

Question 8

What is the substantial evidence test

Answer 8

reasonable in light of the whole record. Applies only to fact finding.

• less than POE
• such that a reasoning mind would conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion

Question 9

How to attack an abuse of discretion for scope? (3 ways)

Answer 9

1) did the agency consider IRRELEVANT factos
2) did the agency fail to consider any RELEVANT factors
3) did the agency fail to plausibly EXPLAIN any apparent inconsistency`

Question 10

Will the courts ever decide an issue that should have been made by agency?

Answer 10

NO. Courts will never exercise discretion that the legislature has lawfull vested in agency. If reviewing court finds agency action illegal, it sets the action aside but does not decide the issue. Instead the courts REMAND to the agency to try again.