Article Abstract:
The regulatory reform bills proposed by Congress in 1995 would be unlikely to have changed the standard of review applied by courts hearing appeals of administrative rulings, but the increased judicial review provisions may have had an impact on caseloads. It is clear that the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment measures would slow the pace of rule-making. The increased documentation that would be required to provide cost-benefit justification would be more time-consuming and could result in greater vulnerability during review.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
A number of common problems confront the states in their attempts to frame statutes to establish judicial review of state administrative agencies. The methods of judicial review need to be detailed in the statute or in appropriate court rules. Jurisdiction and venue, how review is initiated, whether review is by trial or appellate court and the available remedies must be explained. The scope of reviewable actions, who can bring what sorts of actions and the time restraints on review must also be specified.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The proposed regulatory reform bill, Senate bill 343, would not appear to have any effect on the standard of review applied by the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to administrative rulings. Review would still be limited to considering whether the ruling was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The increased burden placed on agencies to justify regulatory action would create more of a record, which the agencies may then have to defend in court.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: