khadijeh shojaeian
Abstract
Reasonableness is one aspect of judicial review in the common law system. Its origin was in England, however it has been introduced and applied in other countries with some modifications. This criterion is used in the US legal system as one way of violating the informal rules of administrative agencies ...
Read More
Reasonableness is one aspect of judicial review in the common law system. Its origin was in England, however it has been introduced and applied in other countries with some modifications. This criterion is used in the US legal system as one way of violating the informal rules of administrative agencies under the heading of “arbitrary and capricious review” which is expressed in article 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The present article, in light of case laws, describes and analyzes developments in the application of the above criteria in the courts of the United States. Over the time, interpretations of courts have been changed and their deferential interpretations have moved to hard look ground. Hard look ground seems to call for more judicial scrutiny and more heightened standards of judicial review than had been traditionally demanded from the arbitrary and capricious test. In hard-look doctrine, courts should carefully review administrative agencies decisions to ensure that the agencies have genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making. The hard look doctrine is simply a reflection of the courts view of how an effective and meaningful process of judicial review should be conducted. Accordingly, the administrative agencies should examine all the important dimensions of the matter and the alternative solutions and, by referring to the documentation, provide detailed justifications of their new decisions and changes to their previous procedures.
