Supreme Court Ruling Could Change How Veterans Win Disability Benefits

Courts apply different standards of review depending on the type of agency decision being challenged. Legal questions—involving the interpretation of statutes or regulations—typically receive less deference, as courts consider themselves competent to interpret legal texts. Factual determinations and policy judgments, by contrast, typically receive more deference, reflecting judicial recognition of agency expertise and democratic accountability.

The “substantial evidence” standard, applied to many agency factual determinations, requires that agency decisions be supported by evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard provides meaningful review while acknowledging that agencies may reasonably reach different conclusions from the same evidence.

The “arbitrary and capricious” standard, applied to agency policy decisions, asks whether the agency examined relevant data, articulated a rational connection between facts and choices, and considered important aspects of the problem. This standard allows agencies considerable discretion while requiring that their decisions be reasoned and well-supported.

Continue reading…