Which statement best describes the standard of review for a discretionary enforcement decision by an agency?

Which statement best describes the standard of review for a discretionary enforcement decision by an agency?

• A. De novo review is used to reexamine the agency’s decision.
• B. The arbitrary and capricious standard applies to agency enforcement decisions.
• C. Strict scrutiny applies to administrative enforcement decisions.
• D. There is no judicial review of enforcement decisions.

Answer: (B)

When a court reviews a discretionary enforcement decision by an agency, it uses the arbitrary and capricious standard. This means the agency’s action will be upheld if it rests on a rational basis, considers the relevant factors, and has a clear and adequate explanation in the record. The court does not second-guess the agency’s judgment on the facts or substitute its own view about what should have been done; instead it checks that the agency did not ignore important considerations, rely on irrelevant factors, or act without a lawful basis. This standard reflects respect for agency expertise while guarding against arbitrary decisions. If the agency shows it weighed appropriate factors and provided a reasoned decision consistent with the statute and record, the action is typically valid. The other options don’t fit: de novo review would undo the purpose of giving deference to the agency’s expertise; strict scrutiny is a constitutional standard not used for routine enforcement choices; and there is judicial review, so there is no basis to claim no review at all.

When a court reviews a discretionary enforcement decision by an agency, it uses the arbitrary and capricious standard. This means the agency’s action will be upheld if it rests on a rational basis, considers the relevant factors, and has a clear and adequate explanation in the record. The court does not second-guess the agency’s judgment on the facts or substitute its own view about what should have been done; instead it checks that the agency did not ignore important considerations, rely on irrelevant factors, or act without a lawful basis.

This standard reflects respect for agency expertise while guarding against arbitrary decisions. If the agency shows it weighed appropriate factors and provided a reasoned decision consistent with the statute and record, the action is typically valid. The other options don’t fit: de novo review would undo the purpose of giving deference to the agency’s expertise; strict scrutiny is a constitutional standard not used for routine enforcement choices; and there is judicial review, so there is no basis to claim no review at all.