Judicial Review of Agency Action
Administrative Law · Lesson 04
Judicial Review of Agency Action
這一課問的是：司法審查機關行為適用何種標準？該行為是否可被審查？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Visual Scene · the picture in your head
Issue. What standard governs judicial review of agency action — and is the action reviewable at all?
這一課問的是：司法審查機關行為適用何種標準？該行為是否可被審查？
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
§ 706
Tap to see meaning
APA judicial review provision.
§ 706。
arbitrary and capricious
Tap to see meaning
Most deferential standard; agency action upheld unless clear error.
任意專橫。
substantial evidence
Tap to see meaning
Applied to formal adjudication and rulemaking — more than scintilla.
實質證據。
de novo
Tap to see meaning
No deference; court decides independently — narrow.
重新審查。
§ 701
Tap to see meaning
Action committed to agency discretion or precluded by statute — unreviewable.
§ 701。
final agency action
Tap to see meaning
Generally required for reviewability.
終局機關行為。
Chevron deference
Tap to see meaning
Special framework for statutory interpretation.
Chevron 尊重。
Issue · what this lesson is really about
What standard governs judicial review of agency action — and is the action reviewable at all?
這一課問的是：司法審查機關行為適用何種標準？該行為是否可被審查？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
agency actionreviewable§ 706arbitrary and capricioussubstantial evidence
Expression Bank · how lawyers actually say it
Six function → sentence patterns. Use these in essay applications.
| Function | English sentence | 中文 |
|---|---|---|
| State scope | Under § 706, courts review agency action under specific standards depending on type and question presented. | § 706：依行為類型與問題適用不同標準。 |
| Apply arbitrary and capricious | Informal rulemaking and adjudication reviewed for arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion. | 非正式規則制定與裁決：A&C 審查。 |
| Apply substantial evidence | Formal proceedings reviewed under substantial-evidence standard. | 正式：實質證據審查。 |
| Apply unreviewability | Action committed to agency discretion or precluded by statute is unreviewable; presumption of reviewability otherwise. | 裁量或法律排除不可審查；其他推定可審查。 |
| Apply finality | Reviewable action must be final — consummating decision + legal consequences. | 須終局 — 決策完成 + 法律後果。 |
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Under APA § 706, courts review agency action under standards calibrated to the type of action and question presented: arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion for informal proceedings; substantial evidence for formal proceedings; and Chevron-style deference for agency interpretations of statutes; agency action committed to agency discretion or precluded by statute is unreviewable.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人court法院
Act 行為reviewing agency action審查機關行為
Object 對象challenged action受挑戰行為
Standard 法律標準§ 706 standards§ 706 標準
Consequence 後果action upheld or set aside維持或廢棄
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.
Holding. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider important aspects of the problem, offered explanation that runs counter to the evidence, or is so implausible it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or agency expertise.
Why it matters. State Farm gave teeth to A&C review — "hard look" doctrine requires reasoned decisionmaking.
State Farm：A&C 須「認真審視」— 機關推理須充分。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ all agency action 可審查。
✓ § 701 carves out action committed to agency discretion or precluded.
§ 701 排除。
✗ de novo 為 standard 規則。
✓ De novo is narrow; most review uses deferential standards.
de novo 範圍狹。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Was the agency's decision to rescind its airbag rule arbitrary and capricious where the agency failed to consider whether airbags should be retained even if automatic seatbelts were impractical?
Rule. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.
Application (model). The agency rescinded the airbag rule but failed to consider whether airbags alone could satisfy the safety mandate. Because A&C review under State Farm requires considering important aspects of the problem, the fact that the agency entirely failed to consider an alternative compliance option (airbags alone) means the rescission was arbitrary and capricious.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, the rescission must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious.
MBE Check · multiple choice
P seeks judicial review of agency's denial of a permit. Statute is silent on review. Result?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: