Arbitrary and capricious standard
What is the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard?
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts review agency actions to ensure they are not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The arbitrary and capricious test prevents agencies from acting on whim, without explanation, or by ignoring relevant data. Essentially, the agency must:
Examine the relevant data.
Articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
Avoid ignoring important aspects of the problem.
Avoid offering explanations that run counter to the evidence.
If the agency fails, the court can set aside the agency's decision.
Case 1: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Facts:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded a passive restraint safety standard for cars (like airbags) after initially adopting it. The State Farm Mutual sued, arguing the rescission was arbitrary and capricious.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the agency's rescission was arbitrary and capricious because NHTSA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in policy, especially ignoring relevant safety concerns and failing to consider alternatives like airbags.
Significance:
This case clarified that agencies must provide reasoned explanations for changing policies. An agency cannot simply reverse course without considering the impact and explaining the rationale.
Case 2: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
Facts:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its policy regarding the regulation of indecent language on broadcast TV. Fox Television challenged the fines imposed after the policy change.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled the FCC's policy change was not arbitrary and capricious because the agency adequately explained the reasons for its new approach and acknowledged the policy change.
Significance:
This case further emphasized that agencies have flexibility to change policies, but must provide a reasoned explanation for the change, showing they have considered the implications.
Case 3: Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974)
Facts:
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) denied a trucking company's application for certification without explaining why.
Holding:
The Supreme Court found the denial arbitrary and capricious because ICC failed to provide a reasoned explanation or address relevant factors.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that agencies must articulate reasons for their decisions; failure to do so renders decisions arbitrary.
Case 4: Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Facts:
The Secretary of Transportation approved the construction of a highway through a public park, despite alternative routes.
Holding:
The Court held that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious because there was no evidence the alternatives had been considered and the agency failed to comply with statutory requirements to protect public parks.
Significance:
This case is famous for establishing the standard that courts must carefully review agency decisions to ensure they consider relevant factors and comply with statutes.
Case 5: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)
Facts:
EPA vetoed a state-approved permit for a mining project, claiming it would cause environmental harm. The Alaska Department argued EPA’s veto was arbitrary and capricious.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held EPA's veto was not arbitrary and capricious because the EPA had adequately justified the veto based on environmental protection goals and statutory standards.
Significance:
This case shows agencies can make decisions that override others if supported by reasoned explanations and statutory authority.
Case 6: State Farm v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 463 U.S. 29 (1983) — Additional Detail
This is the seminal case on the arbitrary and capricious standard, so here's a bit more detail:
The NHTSA first issued a passive restraint rule.
Later, the agency rescinded it, claiming that airbags were not cost-effective.
The Court held the agency ignored important safety data and cost-benefit analyses.
The Court emphasized that an agency must consider all relevant factors, not ignore evidence, and provide a reasoned explanation for policy reversals.
Summary of the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard in Light of These Cases
Reasoned Decision-Making: Agencies must explain their decisions clearly, showing a logical connection between the facts and the conclusions.
Consideration of Relevant Factors: Agencies must not ignore important aspects of the issue.
Policy Changes: Agencies can change policies but must justify the changes rationally.
Review Scope: Courts defer to agencies but require them to follow procedures and explain decisions.
Procedural Compliance: Agencies must comply with statutory mandates when making decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments