Abstract
This article discusses how to challenge decisions of fact made by administrative agencies, based on a recent federal appellate decision in which a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency was overturned. In Genuine Auto Parts v EPA, the court concluded that the agency’s failure to address an important element of the matter made its decision “arbitrary and capricious” and “not supported by substantial evidence.” The article discusses the relationship between “arbitrary and capricious” and “not supported by substantial evidence” as independent grounds for overturning an agency decision and concludes that both require a challenge to the decision-making process, not a challenge to the substance of the agency decision and the both require a rational process so that an agency failure to articulate a reason for its decision can be grounds for reversal.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
