Free tool · Administrative Law
Judicial Review of Agency Action: Will a Court Review It, and How?
A court will review agency action only if it is final, the challenger has standing, the claim is ripe, administrative remedies have been exhausted where required, and review is not barred by statute or because the matter is committed to agency discretion. If it will review, the standard depends on the question. A question of law is decided by the court’s independent judgment, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright ended Chevron deference. Facts found in a formal record are reviewed for substantial evidence. Policy and discretionary choices are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, which asks for a reasoned explanation. Procedure is checked against what the law requires.
Tool · Judicial Review of Agency Action
Reviewable. The standard: Arbitrary and capricious.
Final agency action: The APA allows review of ‘final agency action’: the end of the agency’s decision-making that determines rights or obligations or from which legal consequences flow, not a tentative or interlocutory step (Bennett v Spear).
Standing: The plaintiff needs injury in fact that is traceable to the agency action and redressable, and an interest within the zone of interests of the statute.
Exhaustion: A party must generally use the administrative remedies available before going to court, unless they are inadequate or futile, or the statute does not require it (Darby v Cisneros: no exhaustion beyond what the statute or rule requires for APA review).
Ripeness: The issue must be fit for judicial decision, and withholding review must cause hardship (Abbott Laboratories v Gardner).
Reviewability: There is a presumption of reviewability, and nothing here displaces it.
Standard (Arbitrary and capricious): The court asks whether the agency examined the relevant data, articulated a satisfactory explanation, and made a rational connection between the facts and its choice. It is deferential, but sets aside action where the agency relied on factors that Congress did not intend, failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation contrary to the evidence, or was implausible (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v State Farm; FCC v Prometheus Radio). A change of position needs reasons (FCC v Fox Television), and a pretextual explanation fails (Department of Commerce v New York).
Reasoned explanation: The agency did not adequately explain its decision, which is the usual ground on which policy decisions are set aside.
- Under the APA, a court sets aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right; in excess of statutory authority; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence in a formal record, § 706(2).
- In Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo (2024), the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference: courts now use their independent judgment to decide whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, though an agency’s reasoned view may still persuade (Skidmore), and a statute can delegate discretion expressly. The law in this area is changing, so check the latest decisions.
Walks through whether a court will review an agency’s action (final action, standing, exhaustion, ripeness, reviewability) and, if so, which standard of review applies to the kind of question: law, fact, policy or procedure. Administrative law is changing, especially deference to agencies after Loper Bright, so check the latest decisions. Invented facts; a teaching aid, not legal advice. Runs in your browser; nothing is stored or sent.
How to use it
- Say what the court is asked to decide: law, fact, policy or procedure.
- Tick whether the action is final and the threshold requirements are met.
- Say whether the agency explained its decision and acted within its authority.
- Read whether the court will review and under what standard.
Common questions
What did Loper Bright change?
It overruled Chevron deference. Courts now decide for themselves what a statute means, though they can still be persuaded by an agency’s reasoned view, and a statute can expressly give the agency discretion.
What does arbitrary and capricious mean?
That the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, relied on improper factors, offered an explanation contrary to the evidence, or did not explain itself. The court does not substitute its own judgment on policy.
Can a court review a decision not to enforce?
Usually not. Decisions not to enforce are presumed committed to agency discretion, unless a statute gives guidelines or the agency has abdicated its duty.
Learn the law behind the tool
This tool is part of our Administrative Law course, with lectures, concept maps, flashcards, interactive exercises and a capstone case. Administrative Law: Judicial Review of Agency Action.
More free law tools
General information, simplified, mainly on American law, not legal advice. States and countries differ, and real cases turn on facts that a tool cannot capture.