Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)

Citation: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Parent Document: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Full Text

1,323 chars

"Agency action is arbitrary and capricious 'if the agency has relied on factors which [law] has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.' " Mayo v. Reynolds , 875 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (alterations omitted)); see also Safari Club Int'l , 878 F.3d at 324-25, 2017 WL 6544114, at *5, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26317, at *16 (noting that "[a] disputed action also may be set aside as arbitrary and capricious if the agency has acted 'without observance of procedure required by law.' " (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D) )). A court engaged in arbitrary and capricious review "must not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency," and "ordinarily uphold[s] an agency's decision so long as the agency 'examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' " Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Perdue , 872 F.3d 602, 611 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text