Judicial review of agency action is courts' power to examine whether agency decisions comply with statutory requirements and constitutional limits. The Administrative Procedure Act grants courts authority to overturn agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law."
When someone challenges an EPA rule or an immigration decision, they file suit in federal court. The court reviews the administrative record to see if the agency followed procedures, considered relevant facts, explained its reasoning, and stayed within statutory authority. Courts use different standards depending on the situation. For "pure" questions of law (what does a statute mean?), courts use independent judgment. For technical judgments within agency expertise, courts give deference.
The Loper Light decision (2024) fundamentally changed judicial review. For decades, courts deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes under the Chevron Doctrine. Loper Lights held that courts must use their own independent judgment when interpreting statutes, regardless of agency views. This expanded judicial review power dramatically, allowing courts to strike down agency actions on grounds they previously would have upheld.
Judicial review is the check on agency power. Without it, agencies could act arbitrarily and violate laws. With it, courts ensure agencies follow the Constitution and Congress's intent.
People often think judicial review means courts can strike down any agency action. In practice, courts are limited to reviewing legality and constitutionality, not policy disagreements.
Judicial review is the check on agency power. Without it, agencies could act arbitrarily and violate laws. With it, courts ensure agencies follow the Constitution and Congress's intent.
People often think judicial review means courts can strike down any agency action. In practice, courts are limited to reviewing legality and constitutionality, not policy disagreements.