Arbitrary and capricious review asks whether an agency acted without a rational explanation, ignored important facts, or made a decision that does not reasonably connect the record to the result.
Why It Matters
This standard matters because agencies have broad power, but not unlimited power. Courts use this doctrine to check whether agency decisions are reasoned, consistent with the record, and made through lawful decision-making.
Where It Appears
The term appears in administrative-law challenges to regulations, adjudications, permitting decisions, and other agency actions. It commonly arises when a party asks a court to review how an agency explained and justified its decision.
Practical Example
An agency reverses a long-standing policy without addressing obvious evidence in the record or explaining the change. A court may find the action arbitrary and capricious.
How It Differs From Nearby Terms
Arbitrary and capricious review is about whether an agency decision was reasoned and supported. Rulemaking concerns the process agencies use to create rules. Vagueness and due process are different constitutional doctrines focused on clarity and fairness rather than record-based agency reasoning.
Related Terms
- Rulemaking
- Administrative Law Judge
- Judicial Review
- Notice and Comment Rulemaking
- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Knowledge Check
- What does a court usually look for in arbitrary and capricious review? The court looks for a reasoned explanation and a sensible connection between the record and the agency’s decision.
- Is this doctrine mainly about agency process or private contracts? It is mainly about agency decision-making in administrative law.