Are courts starting to scrutinize administrative decisions?
Today, the Federalist Society Blog shared a post that Larry Salzman and I co-authored regarding how some judges are keeping administrative agencies accountable to average Americans. In the post, we explain that judges are scrutinizing agencies’ decisions more closely, and are requiring them to support their determinations with actual facts and evidence. We explain that this higher level of scrutiny is representative of a growing reluctance of judges to give deference when it is not warranted.
Here is a sample of the post:
Requiring agencies to provide evidence to justify their decisions, insisting that they act within the bounds of their statutory authority, and ensuring that suffering plaintiffs have access to meaningful judicial review are hallmarks of good judging. Those of us concerned to hold administrative agencies accountable to the law can only hope the trend continues.
You can read the rest of the post here.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›