Download
1 / 6
60 likes | 183 Vues
The relationship between agencies & the judicial branch. Appellate court standards of review of lower courts:. Review of what?. Standard of review. Lower court legal conclusion Lower court fact finding Lower court evidentiary/procedural rulings Jury fact finding. De Novo Clearly erroneous
E N D
The relationship between agencies & the judicial branch Appellate court standards of review of lower courts: Review of what? Standard of review • Lower court legal conclusion • Lower court fact finding • Lower court evidentiary/procedural rulings • Jury fact finding • De Novo • Clearly erroneous • Abuse of Discretion • Deference/jury standard To what extent do courts review agency findings of fact/law under similar or different standards and why?
The purpose of judicial review: Appellate courts use different standards to review lower court findings because there are different purposes in reviewing law & facts: • Facts: Jury and lower court are in better position to assess facts - use more deferential standards than “de novo” review • Law: Court of appeals is best equipped to say what the law is -- need give no deference to another court’s findings of law Goals of judicial review of administrative findings are essentially the same (allocate decision-making authority) BUT the standards are different: • Tend to involve greater deference to agency findings AND are different in verbal formulation
Overton Park – the facts • DOT Act & Federal-Aid Hiway Act give Sec’y of Trans. the power to approve release of funds for certain highway projects. • Those laws prohibited Sec’y from releasing funds for hiways built through fed parks unless there was no other “feasible & prudent” alternative route. • Sec’y released funds for the Overton Park highway project. • Citizen group sued claiming that Secretary’s decision was invalid because it lacked formal findings. • District and appellate courts agreed with the Sec’y that no formal findings necessary. • SCT agreed no formal findings were necessary BUT granted certiorari anyway to determine whether the Sec’ys decision was appropriate
Overton Park – the feasibility of judicial review • APA Section 701 provides that judicial review of agency action (see §§ 702 & 704) is available unless: • Judicial review is precluded by statute (§ 701(a)(1)) • Agency action is committed to agency discretion by law (§ 701(a)(2)) • What is SCT’s reasoning as to why the Sec’ys action is not committed to agency discretion? • Why should Congress provide for judicial review of the Secy’s decision to release hiway funds? • Does this kind of action lend itself to judicial review? • What barriers are there to judicial review? • Why might judicial review be important anyway?
APA standards of review – section 706 • Which standard of review did SCT find appropriate in Overton Park? • APA Section 706 • . . . The reviewing court shall. . . . (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, conclusions of law when • (A) arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law • (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity • (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction . . . . • (D) without observance of procedure required by law • (E) unsupported by substantial evidence if a case subject to §§ 556, 557 (i.e., an on-the-record proceeding) • (F) unwarranted by facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by reviewing court
SCT’s action in Overton Park • After finding the appropriate standard of review, what action does SCT take in Overton Park? Why? • How will the DCT go about doing that given the informal nature of the Sec’ys decision?
