Citations (2)


Footnotes (187)



Reasonable Agencies

David T. Zaring

University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department

March 1, 2010

Virginia Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 2317-2379, 2010

This article argues that the complex doctrine of judicial review of administrative action - containing no less than six separate tests depending on the sort of agency action to be reviewed - both descriptively is and normatively should be simplified into a “reasonable agency” standard. Courts, following step two of the Chevron doctrine, have started to sneak a reasonableness standard into their review in lieu of making the difficult distinctions required by current doctrine. Scholars evaluating the difference among the various doctrinal tests have started to note the increasing similarity among the tests, at least as applied by the courts. Empirical research, to which this Article contributes an additional study, suggests that regardless of the standard of review, courts affirm agencies’ actions slightly more than two thirds of the time; the variance of the validation rates of agency action, regardless of the standard of review, is small. A reasonable agency standard would simplify and clarify administrative law, better describe what courts actually do when confronted with agency action, and better explain the judicial role in the administrative state.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 63

Keywords: Administrative Law, Courts, Chevron, Substantial Evidence

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: March 1, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Zaring, David T., Reasonable Agencies (March 1, 2010). Virginia Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 2317-2379, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1561850

Contact Information

David T. Zaring (Contact Author)
University of Pennsylvania - Legal Studies Department ( email )
3730 Walnut Street
Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6365
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,479
Downloads: 296
Download Rank: 76,564
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  187