Show simple item record

dc.creatorMurphy, Richard W.
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-26T15:30:50Z
dc.date.available2019-08-26T15:30:50Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citation43 Admin. & Reg. L. News 20en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/85074
dc.description.abstractDiscusses general practice of how an administrative order may be reversed before and after the SEC v. Chenery case in 1943. Previously, in some contexts, where a court reviews another decisionmaker’s action, the court inquires whether the decisionmaker could have reasonably justified the action. Here, courts do not attempt to examine the actual reasoning processes of the legislators. This changed after the Chenery case. Now where an agency’s action is not compelled by law but instead implicates its judgment and discretion, the validity of that action does not depend on whether the agency could have had a reasonable justification at the time it acted. Rather, the validity of the action depends on whether the agency’s contemporaneous rationale was, in fact, legal and reasonable. Since Chenery, courts look to find ways around this, with or without acknowledging that they are doing so.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAdministrative & Regulatory Law Newsen_US
dc.subjectSEC v. Cheneryen_US
dc.subjectAdministrative ordersen_US
dc.subjectReversal of administrative ordersen_US
dc.subjectRemand of administrative ordersen_US
dc.subjectAgency adjudicationen_US
dc.subjectHarmless erroren_US
dc.subjectNondelegation doctrineen_US
dc.titleChenery’s Contemporaneous Rationale Principle and Chenery Cheatingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record