A standard of review is the level of deference or scrutiny a reviewing court uses when evaluating a lower court or agency decision.
Why It Matters
This concept matters because many cases turn not only on the legal issue itself but on how closely the reviewing court is allowed to reexamine the earlier decision. Different standards produce very different outcomes.
Where It Appears
The term appears in appeals, administrative-law cases, constitutional review, and evidentiary disputes. Lawyers often focus on standard of review because it shapes the court’s approach from the start.
Practical Example
A court reviewing an agency action may ask whether the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously rather than deciding the issue from scratch. That review framework is part of the applicable standard of review.
How It Differs From Nearby Terms
Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review are constitutional standards used for certain rights questions. Standard of review is broader and includes appellate and administrative review frameworks such as deference to factual findings or agency reasoning.
Related Terms
Knowledge Check
- What does a standard of review control? It controls how closely a reviewing court examines the decision being challenged.
- Why can standard of review affect case outcomes? Because a highly deferential standard makes reversal harder than a more demanding or less deferential one.