Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Administrative agencies exercise significant governmental power. They make rules, investigate conduct, conduct hearings, enforce regulatory requirements, impose penalties, issue licenses, and make decisions affecting individuals and businesses.

But administrative agencies are not above the law.

One of the central safeguards of administrative law is judicial review: the authority of courts to examine agency action and determine whether the agency acted within the limits imposed by the Constitution, statutes, and administrative law.

Judicial review does not ordinarily mean that a court simply substitutes its preferred policy judgment for that of the agency. Instead, the court asks whether the agency acted lawfully, followed the required procedures, considered the relevant factors, supported its factual conclusions appropriately, and stayed within the authority granted to it.

At the federal level, much of this framework is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA establishes standards governing judicial review of federal agency action, including the circumstances in which courts may set agency action aside. The statute also directs reviewing courts to decide relevant questions of law and to set aside agency action that is unlawful or otherwise fails the applicable standards.

For a general introduction to judicial review, see the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute’s explanation of judicial review.

What Is Judicial Review of Administrative Action?

Judicial review of administrative action is the process by which a court examines an agency’s action to determine whether it is legally valid.

The agency may have:

• issued a regulation;
• denied or granted a license;
• imposed an administrative penalty;
• conducted an adjudication;
• interpreted a statute;
• taken enforcement action;
• issued an administrative order;
• made a factual determination;
• refused to take an action; or
• adopted or changed a regulatory policy.

A person or organization affected by the agency’s action may, where authorized by law, seek judicial review.

The court then examines the agency action under the applicable legal framework.

The fundamental question is not simply:

“Did the court agree with the agency?”

It is:

“Did the agency act lawfully?”

That distinction is essential.

Why Is Judicial Review Necessary?

Administrative agencies possess specialized expertise and substantial governmental authority.

That combination creates an important constitutional and institutional question.

If agencies can create rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations, and impose sanctions, what prevents those powers from being exercised beyond their lawful limits?

Judicial review provides one answer.

Courts can examine agency action for:

• statutory authority;
• constitutional compliance;
• procedural legality;
• factual support;
• reasoned decision-making;
• proper interpretation of governing law;
• compliance with the APA; and
• other legal requirements.

Judicial review therefore helps maintain the rule of law within the administrative state.

It also reflects separation of powers. Agencies exercise authority delegated by the legislative branch, while courts determine legal questions and enforce legal limits.

The Administrative Procedure Act

The federal Administrative Procedure Act is central to judicial review of federal agency action.

The APA is codified primarily at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559 and includes provisions governing rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review.

The judicial-review provisions are principally found in 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706.

Section 706 is particularly important because it identifies what reviewing courts must do when agency action is challenged.

Among other things, the court must determine relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.

The court may also set aside agency action that falls within one of the statutory grounds for invalidation.

What Agency Actions Can Be Reviewed?

Judicial review can potentially reach many different forms of agency action.

Regulations

A final agency rule may be challenged on the ground that:

• the agency lacked statutory authority;
• the agency violated required procedures;
• the rule conflicts with a statute;
• the rule violates the Constitution; or
• the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Administrative Orders

A final agency order may be reviewed when the governing law permits judicial review.

Enforcement Decisions

Certain enforcement actions can be reviewed, although the availability and timing of review may depend heavily on the statute and the nature of the agency action.

Licensing Decisions

An agency’s decision to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke a license may be subject to judicial review under the applicable statutory framework.

Adjudications

Final decisions resulting from administrative adjudication may be reviewable by a court.

Agency Inaction

In some circumstances, a party may challenge an agency’s failure to act when the law imposes a legally enforceable duty to act.

Not every agency action is immediately reviewable.

That limitation is critical.

Final Agency Action

The APA generally contemplates judicial review of final agency action.

Finality serves an important purpose.

Courts ordinarily do not want to intervene in the middle of an administrative process before the agency has completed its decision-making.

Consider an agency investigation.

An investigator sends a preliminary request for information. The agency later issues a notice of proposed enforcement. The regulated party responds. An administrative hearing occurs. An ALJ issues a decision. The agency reviews the decision and issues a final order.

Which of these events is the final agency action?

The answer depends on the governing statute and the structure of the particular administrative process.

The finality requirement prevents courts from becoming involved prematurely while an agency is still considering a matter.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Another important concept is exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Exhaustion generally requires a party to use available administrative procedures before seeking judicial relief.

For example, an agency might provide:

1. an initial administrative decision;
2. an internal appeal;
3. reconsideration;
4. review by an agency board; and
5. a final agency decision.

A statute or applicable doctrine may require the party to complete those steps before going to court.

The purpose is partly institutional. The agency should ordinarily have an opportunity to correct its own errors, develop the factual record, and apply its expertise before a court intervenes.

But exhaustion is not an absolute rule in every administrative-law dispute. Whether exhaustion is required depends on the governing statute, the nature of the claim, and the applicable doctrine.

Ripeness

Judicial review also involves ripeness.

A dispute is generally ripe when it has developed sufficiently for judicial resolution.

A purely hypothetical disagreement with an agency may not be ripe.

For example, suppose an agency merely announces that it is considering adopting a particular regulation in the future. A business may not necessarily be able to challenge the hypothetical future regulation immediately.

But once the agency adopts a final rule that directly affects the business, a concrete legal dispute may exist.

Ripeness prevents courts from deciding abstract disputes before the consequences of government action are sufficiently developed.

Standing

The person bringing the lawsuit must also generally have standing.

Standing concerns whether the plaintiff has a sufficient personal stake in the dispute to invoke judicial authority.

A person normally cannot challenge an agency decision merely because the person disagrees with government policy.

The plaintiff must generally identify a legally cognizable injury that is connected to the challenged agency action and capable of being addressed by the court.

Standing therefore answers a different question from the merits.

• Standing: Can this plaintiff bring the challenge?
• Merits: Did the agency act unlawfully?

Both questions matter.

What Does a Court Actually Review?

Judicial review is not necessarily a complete retrial of the administrative proceeding.

In many administrative cases, the court examines the administrative record.

The record may include:

• evidence submitted to the agency;
• testimony;
• exhibits;
• agency findings;
• written submissions;
• regulatory materials;
• public comments;
• investigative materials;
• hearing transcripts;
• agency reasoning; and
• other materials that properly form part of the record.

The record provides the factual and procedural foundation for reviewing agency action.

A party seeking judicial review therefore cannot always wait until the case reaches court to present evidence that was never presented to the agency.

The precise rules concerning the administrative record vary according to the type of proceeding and governing law.

The Standards of Judicial Review

One of the most important concepts in administrative law is the standard of review.

A standard of review determines how the court evaluates the agency’s action.

The standard matters because courts do not treat every aspect of agency decision-making in exactly the same way.

Questions of law, questions of fact, and discretionary policy judgments can receive different forms of review.

The APA identifies several important grounds for setting agency action aside.

Review of Questions of Law

Questions of law include issues such as:

• What does a statute mean?
• Does an agency possess statutory authority?
• Does a regulation conflict with a statute?
• What does the Constitution require?
• Did the agency apply the correct legal standard?

Historically, one of the most important doctrines in this area was Chevron deference.

Under Chevron, courts generally deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes administered by the agency.

That framework has changed.

The End of Chevron Deference

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the Supreme Court overruled Chevron.

The Court held that the APA requires courts to exercise their own independent judgment when interpreting statutes and does not permit courts to defer automatically to an agency merely because the statute is ambiguous.

This does not mean that agency interpretations have no value.

Courts may still consider an agency’s interpretation, particularly where the agency possesses relevant expertise or has developed a well-reasoned interpretation.

But the agency does not receive automatic Chevron-style deference simply because Congress enacted an ambiguous statute.

The distinction is fundamental:

An agency may interpret a statute, but the reviewing court ultimately determines what the law means.

Judicial Review After Loper Bright

The post-Loper Bright framework places renewed emphasis on traditional statutory interpretation.

A reviewing court must independently determine the meaning of the governing statute.

The court considers the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation, including:

• statutory text;
• structure;
• context;
• statutory purpose where appropriate;
• precedent;
• interpretive canons; and
• other legitimate tools of legal interpretation.

The court also considers whether Congress actually delegated authority to the agency.

Loper Bright emphasized that courts must recognize valid delegations, determine the boundaries of delegated authority, and ensure that agencies engage in reasoned decision-making within those boundaries.

This is an important distinction between interpreting law and implementing policy.

Agencies may possess substantial discretion within the authority Congress has granted.

But an agency cannot expand its own statutory authority simply by interpreting an ambiguous statute in its favor.

Arbitrary and Capricious Review

One of the most important APA standards is the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), a court must set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

The standard requires the agency to engage in reasoned decision-making.

The court may ask whether the agency:

• considered the relevant factors;
• considered important aspects of the problem;
• relied on relevant evidence;
• explained its reasoning;
• addressed significant arguments;
• considered reasonable alternatives where legally required; and
• established a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), remains a central case concerning this form of review.

The basic principle is that an agency cannot simply announce a conclusion. It must provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.

Cornell’s discussion of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard similarly explains that the court examines whether there is a rational connection between the facts found and the agency’s choice.

What Arbitrary and Capricious Does Not Mean

The arbitrary-and-capricious standard does not mean that a court asks:

“Would I have made the same policy choice?”

That would improperly transfer policymaking authority from the agency to the judiciary.

Instead, the court asks whether the agency followed the law and engaged in sufficiently reasoned decision-making.

An agency may sometimes choose among several reasonable policy alternatives.

The fact that a judge personally prefers another alternative does not automatically make the agency’s choice unlawful.

Substantial Evidence Review

Another important standard is substantial evidence review.

In certain formal administrative proceedings, the APA provides that agency findings may be set aside when they are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but it does not necessarily require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The reviewing court examines the record to determine whether the agency’s factual findings have adequate evidentiary support under the applicable standard.

This form of review is particularly important in formal adjudications and other proceedings governed by statutes that expressly use the substantial-evidence standard.

De Novo Review

In some situations, a court may review a matter de novo, meaning without the same type of deference ordinarily given to an agency’s prior determination.

De novo review can be authorized by statute or required by the particular legal claim.

It is important not to assume that every administrative dispute receives deferential review.

The applicable statute determines the framework.

Abuse of Discretion

Administrative law also uses the concept of abuse of discretion.

The APA itself refers to agency action that constitutes an abuse of discretion.

A court may conclude that an agency abused its discretion when it exercised discretionary authority in a manner that was legally unreasonable or inconsistent with the governing framework.

Abuse of discretion does not mean that every unfavorable agency decision is unlawful.

The concept is connected to the limits of lawful discretion.

Review of Agency Procedure

Courts can also examine whether an agency followed legally required procedures.

For example, an agency may have failed to:

• provide required notice;
• permit required public participation;
• consider required comments;
• follow mandatory hearing procedures;
• provide an opportunity to respond;
• make required findings;
• follow statutory deadlines; or
• comply with its own legally binding procedural requirements.

A procedurally defective agency action can be invalid even if the agency ultimately reached a policy outcome that might otherwise have been permissible.

Agency Authority and Ultra Vires Action

Judicial review is particularly important when an agency may have acted ultra vires, meaning beyond its lawful authority.

Suppose Congress authorizes an agency to regulate workplace safety.

The agency cannot automatically assume that this authorization allows it to regulate every aspect of employment.

The scope of agency authority must be derived from the statute and, where applicable, the Constitution.

The court may therefore ask:

What power did Congress actually delegate?

Then:

Did the agency remain within that delegation?

This question has become especially important after Loper Bright, because courts must independently determine the boundaries of statutory authority.

Constitutional Review

Agency action can also be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Potential constitutional claims may involve:

• due process;
• equal protection;
• freedom of speech;
• freedom of religion;
• Fourth Amendment protections;
• separation of powers;
• nondelegation;
• the Appointments Clause;
• the Takings Clause; or
• other constitutional provisions.

The APA does not replace the Constitution.

An agency action that satisfies ordinary administrative-law requirements can still be unconstitutional.

Likewise, an agency cannot defend unconstitutional conduct simply by pointing to its statutory authority.

Review of Agency Factfinding

Courts generally recognize that agencies may possess expertise in technical and specialized matters.

That does not mean agency factual findings are immune from review.

Depending on the proceeding, courts may apply:

• substantial evidence review;
• arbitrary-and-capricious review;
• de novo review; or
• another standard specified by statute.

The court must determine which standard applies before evaluating the factual findings.

Review of Agency Policy Choices

Administrative agencies frequently make policy decisions.

For example, an environmental agency may determine how aggressively to regulate a pollutant.

A financial regulator may decide how to prioritize enforcement.

A workplace-safety agency may determine which risks deserve immediate regulatory attention.

Courts generally do not become substitute administrators.

The judicial role is to determine whether the agency acted within lawful boundaries and followed the required decision-making process.

This reflects an important institutional principle:

Judicial review controls unlawful administration without turning judges into administrative policymakers.

Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking

Final agency rules are frequently challenged in court.

A challenge may argue that:

1. the agency lacked statutory authority;
2. the agency violated the APA;
3. the agency failed to provide adequate notice;
4. the final rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposal;
5. the agency failed to consider significant comments;
6. the agency ignored important evidence;
7. the rule is arbitrary and capricious;
8. the rule conflicts with a statute; or
9. the rule violates the Constitution.

Cornell’s explanation of administrative rulemaking notes that final agency rules are generally subject to judicial review concerning statutory authority, procedural compliance, and arbitrary-or-capricious decision-making.

Judicial Review of Administrative Adjudication

Agency adjudications can also be reviewed.

A court may examine:

• whether the agency had jurisdiction;
• whether the hearing complied with due process;
• whether the agency followed required procedures;
• whether the findings are supported by evidence;
• whether the agency applied the correct law;
• whether the agency adequately explained its decision; and
• whether the final order falls within the agency’s authority.

The precise standard depends on the type of adjudication and the governing statute.

Judicial Review of Administrative Penalties

The previous article in this series examined administrative penalties and fines.

Judicial review provides an important safeguard against unlawful penalty assessments.

A regulated party may challenge:

• the existence of the violation;
• the agency’s statutory authority;
• the amount of the penalty;
• the procedure used;
• the evidence supporting the violation;
• the agency’s reasoning;
• the calculation of the penalty; or
• constitutional aspects of the sanction.

The reviewing court does not necessarily recalculate the penalty from scratch.

Instead, the court applies the standard established by the governing law.

Remedies Available to a Reviewing Court

If a court determines that agency action is unlawful, several remedies may be available.

Vacatur or Setting Aside Agency Action

The court may set aside the unlawful action.

This can invalidate a rule, order, or other agency decision to the extent permitted by law.

Remand

The court may send the matter back to the agency.

A remand may instruct the agency to reconsider the matter consistently with the court’s legal ruling.

For example, a court might determine that an agency failed to explain its reasoning adequately and remand the matter for further consideration.

Injunctive Relief

In appropriate circumstances, a court may issue an injunction preventing an agency from taking or enforcing certain actions.

Declaratory Relief

A court may declare the rights of the parties or determine that an agency action is unlawful.

The exact remedy depends on the nature of the dispute and the governing statute.

Remand Is Not Always the Same as Winning Everything

A judicial victory against an agency does not necessarily end the underlying dispute.

Suppose a court finds that an agency’s reasoning was inadequate.

The court may remand the matter.

The agency may then reconsider the issue and adopt a new decision supported by adequate reasoning.

The regulated party therefore may win the judicial challenge without obtaining a permanent prohibition against the underlying regulatory action.

This distinction is important when evaluating litigation strategy.

The Importance of the Administrative Record

The administrative record can determine the outcome of judicial review.

If the agency’s reasoning is clearly documented in the record, the agency may be better positioned to defend its action.

If the record reveals that the agency:

• ignored important evidence;
• failed to consider a required factor;
• changed its explanation after litigation began;
• relied on an impermissible factor; or
• failed to explain an important decision,

the agency may face serious difficulties.

Judicial review therefore begins long before a lawsuit is filed.

For regulated parties, preserving objections and participating meaningfully in the administrative process can be critical.

For agencies, building a lawful and well-reasoned administrative record is equally important.

A Practical Example

Imagine that an environmental agency adopts a regulation limiting emissions from a particular industrial process.

A manufacturing company challenges the rule.

The company argues that:

• the statute does not authorize the agency to regulate this particular pollutant;
• the agency failed to adequately consider scientific evidence;
• the final rule differs substantially from the proposal;
• the agency ignored significant public comments; and
• the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

The court does not simply ask whether the regulation is good environmental policy.

Instead, it may proceed through several questions.

First: Does the plaintiff have standing?

The company must establish a sufficient injury connected to the regulation.

Second: Is the challenge ripe?

The court must determine whether there is a sufficiently developed legal dispute.

Third: Is there final agency action?

The challenged regulation must ordinarily have reached the appropriate stage for judicial review.

Fourth: Has the plaintiff satisfied any exhaustion requirement?

The governing statute may require administrative procedures to be completed first.

Fifth: Did Congress authorize the agency’s action?

The court independently interprets the statute under the post-Loper Bright framework.

Sixth: Did the agency follow required procedures?

The court examines the rulemaking process.

Seventh: Did the agency engage in reasoned decision-making?

The court evaluates the administrative record under the applicable standard.

Eighth: Is the regulation constitutional?

If constitutional issues are raised, the court addresses them separately.

Ninth: What remedy is appropriate?

If the rule is unlawful, the court determines whether to set it aside, remand it, enjoin enforcement, or provide another appropriate remedy.

This sequence demonstrates how judicial review transforms an abstract challenge to agency power into a structured legal analysis.

A Practical Framework for Analyzing Agency Action

When evaluating whether an agency action can be challenged in court, the following framework is useful.

1. Identify the agency action

What exactly did the agency do?

2. Identify the legal authority

What statute, regulation, or other source supposedly authorizes the action?

3. Determine whether the action is final

Has the agency completed the relevant administrative process?

4. Examine standing

Has the challenger suffered a legally cognizable injury?

5. Consider ripeness

Is the dispute sufficiently developed for judicial resolution?

6. Consider exhaustion

Must available administrative remedies be completed first?

7. Identify the governing review statute

Does the APA apply? Does a specific statute provide a different review mechanism?

8. Identify the standard of review

Is the issue one of law, fact, discretion, procedure, or constitutional validity?

9. Examine the administrative record

What evidence and reasoning support the agency’s decision?

10. Examine statutory authority

Did the agency remain within the authority Congress delegated?

11. Examine procedural compliance

Did the agency follow mandatory procedures?

12. Consider constitutional claims

Does the action implicate due process, separation of powers, individual rights, or another constitutional limitation?

13. Identify the possible remedy

Would the appropriate result be vacatur, remand, injunction, declaratory relief, or another remedy?

Judicial Review and Separation of Powers

Judicial review exists within a constitutional system of separated governmental powers.

Congress creates statutory frameworks and delegates authority.

Agencies administer those statutes.

Courts interpret the law and determine whether government action remains within legal boundaries.

None of these institutions has unlimited authority.

The challenge is maintaining the proper balance.

If courts defer too much, agencies could potentially become the final judges of the scope of their own authority.

If courts intervene too aggressively, judges could become substitute administrators and interfere with legitimate executive policymaking.

Judicial review therefore requires both legal enforcement and institutional restraint.

Judicial Review After Loper Bright

The 2024 decision in Loper Bright represents a major development in modern administrative law.

The decision did not eliminate administrative agencies.

It did not eliminate agency expertise.

It did not require courts to disregard agency interpretations.

Instead, it rejected the proposition that statutory ambiguity automatically requires judicial deference to the agency’s interpretation.

Courts must exercise independent judgment when determining what statutes mean.

At the same time, agencies retain the authority Congress actually delegated to them.

This means that an important question in modern administrative litigation is no longer simply:

“Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?”

It is more fundamentally:

“What does the governing law mean, what authority did Congress delegate, and did the agency remain within that authority while exercising its lawful discretion?”

That shift makes careful statutory interpretation increasingly important in administrative-law litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is judicial review of administrative action?

It is the process through which a court examines agency action to determine whether the agency acted within its lawful authority and complied with applicable statutory, procedural, and constitutional requirements.

Can courts overturn administrative agency decisions?

Yes. Where judicial review is authorized and the agency action is unlawful under the applicable standard, a court may set aside the action, remand it, enjoin enforcement, or provide another appropriate remedy.

Does every agency decision go directly to court?

No. Finality, standing, ripeness, exhaustion, jurisdiction, and specific statutory review procedures can determine whether and when judicial review is available.

What is final agency action?

It generally refers to agency action that has reached the legally significant endpoint of the agency’s decision-making process and has sufficient legal consequences to be reviewable. The precise analysis depends on the governing statute and circumstances.

What does arbitrary and capricious mean?

It describes agency action that lacks the reasoned decision-making required by law, such as action that ignores important factors, relies on impermissible considerations, or lacks a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.

What happened to Chevron deference?

The Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024. Courts must independently interpret statutes rather than automatically defer to an agency’s interpretation merely because the statute is ambiguous.

Do courts defer to agencies at all after Loper Bright?

Agencies can still possess expertise and their interpretations can still be persuasive. But courts do not automatically transfer interpretive authority to agencies simply because statutory language is ambiguous.

What is substantial evidence review?

It is a standard used in certain administrative proceedings under which a court examines whether the agency’s factual findings are adequately supported by the relevant record.

What is exhaustion of administrative remedies?

It generally means completing available administrative procedures before seeking judicial relief when exhaustion is required. The doctrine allows agencies an opportunity to address issues before judicial intervention.

Can constitutional claims be raised against agencies?

Yes. Agency action can be challenged under constitutional provisions including due process, separation of powers, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Takings Clause, and other constitutional doctrines where applicable.

Can a court simply substitute its policy judgment for the agency’s?

Generally, no. Judicial review is primarily concerned with legality and reasoned decision-making, not with turning judges into administrative policymakers.

Key Takeaways

• Judicial review is a fundamental mechanism for controlling administrative power.
• Courts can review agency rules, orders, adjudications, enforcement actions, and other agency decisions when judicial review is authorized.
• The Administrative Procedure Act provides the principal federal framework for judicial review of many agency actions.
• Final agency action is generally an important prerequisite to review.
• Standing, ripeness, exhaustion, and jurisdiction can determine whether a case can proceed.
• Courts may examine statutory authority, procedure, factual support, agency reasoning, and constitutional validity.
• The arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires reasoned agency decision-making.
• Substantial evidence review applies in certain administrative proceedings.
• Judicial review does not ordinarily permit courts to become substitute administrators.
• In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference and required courts to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes.
• Agencies retain lawful delegated authority and expertise, but they cannot determine the boundaries of their own statutory power simply by adopting their preferred interpretation.
• Courts may set aside unlawful agency action, remand matters, issue injunctions, provide declaratory relief, or grant other appropriate remedies.
• The administrative record is often central to the outcome of judicial review.
• Judicial review ultimately protects the principle that administrative power remains subject to law.

Conclusion

Judicial review is one of the most important safeguards in administrative law because it prevents administrative power from becoming self-defining.

Agencies may possess extensive regulatory and enforcement authority, but that authority originates in law and remains limited by law.

When agency action is challenged, courts may examine whether the agency possessed statutory authority, followed required procedures, respected constitutional limitations, supported its factual findings, and engaged in reasoned decision-making.

The modern framework also places renewed responsibility on courts to determine what governing statutes actually mean. After Loper Bright, statutory ambiguity no longer automatically transfers interpretive authority to the agency.

At the same time, judicial review does not transform judges into regulators. Agencies retain the discretion Congress has lawfully delegated to them, including the ability to make policy choices within statutory boundaries.

The proper relationship is therefore neither unlimited agency autonomy nor unlimited judicial intervention.

It is administrative power subject to legal boundaries, agency discretion subject to reasoned decision-making, and government action subject to judicial review.

That relationship is essential to the rule of law in the modern administrative state.