Supreme Court Ruling Could Change How Veterans Win Disability Benefits

The stakes involved in administrative decision-making create powerful arguments for both deference and skepticism. Agency expertise can lead to better, more informed decisions that serve both individual and societal interests. But agency errors, bias, or indifference can cause tremendous harm to individuals who often have limited resources to challenge adverse decisions.

THE MECHANICS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The framework governing judicial review of administrative decisions involves complex legal doctrines that attempt to define when courts should defer to agency determinations and when they should exercise independent judgment. Understanding these doctrines helps illuminate the broader tensions between expertise and accountability in administrative governance.

Standards of Review in Administrative Law
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.

Continue reading…