Who has standing to bring a judicial review of an administrative decision?

Who has standing to bring a judicial review of an administrative decision?

• A. Persons who have suffered an unfavorable administrative decision and those with a stake in the outcome, even if injury is less direct
• B. Only parties with direct financial loss
• C. Only government entities
• D. No one can seek judicial review

Answer: (A)

In this area, the key idea is standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision. For an Article 78 petition, a person must be “aggrieved” by the agency’s action. That obligation is interpreted broadly: you don’t need a direct, out‑of‑pocket financial loss to have standing. If the agency decision adversely affects your rights or interests, or you have a real stake in the outcome, you can challenge it. So someone who has suffered an unfavorable decision, or anyone who has a meaningful stake in how the decision will play out—even if the injury is less direct—has standing to seek review. That makes the best answer: standing includes those harmed by the decision and those with a stake in the outcome, even if the injury is not purely financial. The other options are too restrictive or plainly incorrect: limiting standing to direct financial loss ignores valid, nonfinancial interests; restricting standing to government entities would exclude private challengers; and saying no one can seek review ignores the availability of judicial review in administrative law.

In this area, the key idea is standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision. For an Article 78 petition, a person must be “aggrieved” by the agency’s action. That obligation is interpreted broadly: you don’t need a direct, out‑of‑pocket financial loss to have standing. If the agency decision adversely affects your rights or interests, or you have a real stake in the outcome, you can challenge it. So someone who has suffered an unfavorable decision, or anyone who has a meaningful stake in how the decision will play out—even if the injury is less direct—has standing to seek review.

That makes the best answer: standing includes those harmed by the decision and those with a stake in the outcome, even if the injury is not purely financial. The other options are too restrictive or plainly incorrect: limiting standing to direct financial loss ignores valid, nonfinancial interests; restricting standing to government entities would exclude private challengers; and saying no one can seek review ignores the availability of judicial review in administrative law.