Also known as: paths may reasonably be discerned · clearly established right · qualified immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of judicial review under which courts uphold an agency's decision even if its explanation lacks ideal clarity, provided the agency's reasoning can be reasonably understood from the record.
Deputy Director Harlan issued internal guidance restricting Ridge Equity accounts as part of a national-security directive. The agency record showed the restrictions responded to foreign wire-transfer threats but omitted formal findings on domestic due-process impacts. A reviewing court upheld the action because the agency's path from presidential directive to account restrictions could reasonably be discerned.
The agency rescinded a passive-restraint requirement after considering public comments and safety data. Its explanation omitted an explicit weighing of each alternative yet referenced the same studies later cited in the final order. A court sustained the rescission because the agency's path from comment review to policy reversal could reasonably be discerned.
In 1966 Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle safety standards that reduce traffic accidents and deaths. The statute authorized NHTSA to promulgate standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. Over the next decade NHTSA conducted dozens of rulemaking proceedings on occupant crash protection. In 1977 Secretary Brock Adams issued Modified Standard 208, which required automobile manufacturers to phase in passive restraints beginning with large cars in model year 1982 and reaching all cars by model year 1984. Automobile manufacturers began preparing to comply with the 1984 deadline. As late as July 1980 NHTSA reported that on-the-road experience with thousands of vehicles equipped with airbags and automatic belts confirmed the life-saving benefits of such systems. In February 1981, after a change in presidential administration, Secretary Andrew Lewis reopened the rulemaking citing changed economic circumstances and the difficulties facing the automobile industry. Two months later the agency delayed the standard for large cars by one year and proposed possible rescission of the entire requirement. After receiving comments and holding hearings, NHTSA issued Notice 25 rescinding the passive restraint requirement. The agency explained that manufacturers planned to install detachable automatic belts in approximately 99 percent of new cars and that it could no longer reliably predict any significant increase in belt usage. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and the National Association of Independent Insurers filed petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because NHTSA had failed to consider an airbags-only alternative, had not adequately justified its conclusions about detachable belts, and had not considered requiring nondetachable belts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 8, 1982.
View caseThe Department of Defense issued a memorandum classifying certain detainees as enemy combatants without a detailed hearing record. The memorandum referenced presidential directives and intelligence summaries that appeared elsewhere in the administrative file. A court upheld the classification because the agency's path from intelligence to enemy-combatant designation could reasonably be discerned.
School officials adopted a strip-search policy after receiving reports of prescription-drug distribution. The policy statement listed the reports but did not articulate why less intrusive measures were rejected. A court sustained the policy because the agency's path from incident reports to search protocol could reasonably be discerned.
A county sheriff's department revised its high-speed pursuit guidelines after reviewing accident statistics and officer training records. The guidelines omitted an explicit cost-benefit analysis yet referenced the same data sets used in prior internal memoranda. A court upheld the revision because the agency's path from statistics to guideline changes could reasonably be discerned.
The Department of Commerce added a citizenship question to the census form after internal deliberations on enforcement needs. The administrative record contained memoranda linking the question to voting-rights enforcement but did not restate every enforcement rationale. A court upheld the addition because the agency's path from enforcement goals to form revision could reasonably be discerned.
A court applies the standard when an agency's explanation is less than ideal yet its reasoning can still be traced through the administrative record. Remand is unnecessary if the path from facts considered to decision reached is reasonably apparent.
No. The standard permits review of imperfect explanations but still requires that the agency's reasoning appear in the record. Post-hoc rationalizations supplied only in litigation do not satisfy the requirement.
The standard operates within arbitrary-and-capricious review. It allows a court to uphold a decision whose reasoning is discernible even if the agency's writing is not a model of clarity, provided the decision is otherwise supported by the record.
…immunity from damages liability. In Pierson v. Ray , 386 U. S. 547 (1967), we recognized that police officers are entitled to a qualified immunity. But the qualified immunity recognized in Pierson and Scheuer is available only to officials performing discretionary functions. The federal agents here are not entitled to such…