Reasonableness as Responsiveness in Administrative Law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada: Kant and Arendt on the Role of the Community in Deferential Judicial Review

Abstract

Abstract When conducting judicial review of administrative decisions using a deferential standard of review, courts should give a greater role to the decision maker’s responsiveness to the interests of the community of judgment—those directly affected by the decision. This Article uses a theory of judgment developed by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Judgment, and elaborated by Hannah Arendt, to justify why consideration for the community is essential to deciding reasonably. It also reviews the approach to deferential review in the case law of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada to determine what the effect would be of this new approach to assessing the reasonableness of a decision. While reviewing courts usually consider the rationality of the decision for achieving the decision maker’s statutory policy goals and the appropriateness of the decision maker’s appreciation of the relevant facts, they do not generally probe the responsiveness of their reasons to the concerns of those affected by it. This Article suggests that courts should do so. The result is that administrative law will in future require better quality reasons from decision makers. Probing the responsiveness of reasons to the concerns of the community of judgment will require courts to compare the weight that the decision maker has placed on facts and arguments to the weight given to them by community members. This will be a significant change in how courts conduct judicial review, but it should enhance the legitimacy of deferential judicial review.