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
In February, eight Black and Hispanic families filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Connecticut State Department of Education’s race-based enrollment quotas for Hartford’s magnet schools. This policy mandates that 25% of a … ›
Don’t know how to identify every one of the 1,500 endangered species? This group wants to throw you in prison.
Ok, that’s a slight overstatement. But not as much of one as you would think. Activist group WildEarth Guardians apparently dreams of a world in which people can be thrown … ›