ARBITRARY
Irrational; capricious.
The term arbitrary describes a course of
action or a decision that is not based on reason
or judgment but on personal will or discretion
without regard to rules or standards.
An arbitrary decision is one made without
regard for the facts and circumstances pre-
sented, and it connotes a disregard of the evi-
dence.
In many instances, the term implies an ele-
ment of bad faith, and it may be used synony-
mously with tyrannical or despotic.
The term arbitrary refers to the standard of
review used by courts when reviewing a variety
of decisions on appeal. For example, the arbi-
trary and capricious standard of review is the
principle standard of review used by judicial
courts hearing appeals that challenge decisions
issued by administrative bodies.
At the federal level and in most states,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW is a body of law made by
EXECUTIVE BRANCH agencies that have been
delegated power to promulgate rules, regula-
tions, and orders, render decisions, and other-
wise decide miscellaneous disputes. Non-elected
officials in administrative agencies are delegated
this authority in order to streamline the often
lengthy and more deliberative process of legisla-
tive lawmaking that frequently grinds to a halt
amid partisan gridlock.Although administrative
agencies are generally designed to make law-
making and regulation simpler,more direct, and
less formal, they still must provide DUE PROCESS
to affected parties. They must also comply with
administrative procedures created by popularly
elected state and federal legislatures.
One important right recognized in most
administrative proceedings is the right of JUDI-
CIAL REVIEW. Citizens aggrieved by the actions
of an administrative body may typically ask a
judicial court to review those actions for error.
In establishing the standard by which judicial
courts will review the actions of an administra-
tive body, state and federal legislatures seek to
provide agencies with enough freedom to do
their work effectively and efficiently, while
ensuring that individual rights are protected.
Congress tried to maintain this delicate bal-
ance in the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
(APA). The APA limits the scope of a reviewing
court’s authority to determining whether the
agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in exer-
cising its discretion. 5 USCA § 701. In making
this determination, the reviewing court will not
find that the administrative body acted arbitrar-
ily unless the agency failed to follow proper pro-
cedures or rendered a decision that is so clearly
erroneous that it must be set aside to avoid
doing an injustice to the parties.
Specifically, a reviewing court must deter-
mine whether the agency articulated a rational
connection between the factual findings it made
and the decision it rendered. The reviewing court
must also examine the record to ensure that the
agency decision was founded on a reasoned eval-
uation of the relevant factors. Although agencies
are given wide latitude, reviewing courts must be
careful not to rubber-stamp administrative deci-
sions that they deem inconsistent with a statu-
tory mandate or that frustrate the congressional
policy underlying a statute.
Typically, reviewing courts look at the whole
record in making this determination, take into
account the agency’s expertise on any particular
matters, and accept any factual findings made by
the agency. However, the reviewing court is free
to determine how the law should apply to those
facts. If the reviewing court concludes that the
agency’s actions were so arbitrary as to be out-
side any reasonable interpretation of the law, the
court may overturn the agency’s decision or
remand the case back to the agency for further
proceedings in accordance with the court’s deci-
sion.
A reviewing court’s determination that an
agency acted in an arbitrary manner will often
depend on the technical requirements of the
governing law. For example, courts are often
asked to determine whether a federal agency has
acted arbitrarily under the NATIONAL ENVIRON-
MENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA). Pub.L. 91-190, §
2, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended, 42
