Which case is cited as establishing that discretionary agency acts may be set aside for lack of rational basis or for being arbitrary and capricious?

Which case is cited as establishing that discretionary agency acts may be set aside for lack of rational basis or for being arbitrary and capricious?

• A. Peckham v Calogero
• B. Gould v NYC Police
• C. Brown v Board
• D. Gonzales v Open Meetings

Answer: (A)

When courts review discretionary agency actions, they apply a standard that allows setting aside the decision if there is no rational basis or if the action is arbitrary and capricious. This means the agency must have a reasonable, articulable connection to the statutory objectives and must base its decision on the relevant facts; a decision grounded in irrational grounds or ignoring the facts can be struck down. The case that establishes this principle in New York is Peckham v. Calogero. It directly addresses how discretionary agency acts are reviewed and holds that such acts are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard, and may be annulled when there is a lack of rational basis or when the decision is irrational. Other cases cited deal with different legal issues—Brown v. Board concerns constitutional equal protection, Gonzales v. Open Meetings relates to openness of governmental meetings, and Gould v. NYC Police addresses a separate area of law—so they do not establish the standard for reviewing discretionary agency actions.

When courts review discretionary agency actions, they apply a standard that allows setting aside the decision if there is no rational basis or if the action is arbitrary and capricious. This means the agency must have a reasonable, articulable connection to the statutory objectives and must base its decision on the relevant facts; a decision grounded in irrational grounds or ignoring the facts can be struck down.

The case that establishes this principle in New York is Peckham v. Calogero. It directly addresses how discretionary agency acts are reviewed and holds that such acts are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard, and may be annulled when there is a lack of rational basis or when the decision is irrational.

Other cases cited deal with different legal issues—Brown v. Board concerns constitutional equal protection, Gonzales v. Open Meetings relates to openness of governmental meetings, and Gould v. NYC Police addresses a separate area of law—so they do not establish the standard for reviewing discretionary agency actions.