When a court determines a rational basis exists for an agency's determination, what happens to the court's review?

When a court determines a rational basis exists for an agency's determination, what happens to the court's review?

• A. The review ends
• B. The court remands for further evidence
• C. The court must conduct a de novo review
• D. The court substitutes its own judgment

Answer: (A)

The key idea is deference under rational basis review. When a court determines there is a rational basis for an agency’s decision, it means the agency’s action is plausibly related to a legitimate government objective. In that situation the court upholds the agency and ends its review; it does not reweigh facts, search for a different rationale, or substitute its own judgment. Remanding for more evidence or conducting a de novo review would only happen if the record were inadequate or the standard required it, which isn’t the case here. So the proper outcome is that the court’s review ends with the agency’s determination sustained.

The key idea is deference under rational basis review. When a court determines there is a rational basis for an agency’s decision, it means the agency’s action is plausibly related to a legitimate government objective. In that situation the court upholds the agency and ends its review; it does not reweigh facts, search for a different rationale, or substitute its own judgment. Remanding for more evidence or conducting a de novo review would only happen if the record were inadequate or the standard required it, which isn’t the case here. So the proper outcome is that the court’s review ends with the agency’s determination sustained.