Administrative law Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Administrative law – Body of public law governing executive‑branch agencies (rulemaking, adjudication, enforcement). Scope – Regulates agency actions in areas such as trade, environment, taxation, immigration, transport, etc. Judicial review – Court oversight to ensure agency decisions are legal, fair, and consistent with higher norms. Dual jurisdiction (France) – Separate courts for private (civil/criminal) and public (administrative) matters. Proportionality & legality (Germany) – Core constitutional constraints on administrative action. APA (U.S.) – Statutory framework (1946) that sets procedural requirements for agency rulemaking and adjudication. 📌 Must Remember Judicial review focuses on process, not the substantive correctness of the decision. Grounds to set aside a decision: unreasonable (Wednesbury), ultra vires (beyond authority), arbitrary and capricious. U.S. APA sources of authority: APA itself (procedural floor). Organic statute that creates the agency. Agency‑issued rules (formal). Informal agency practice (guidance, policy statements). France: Administrative courts protect rights such as fair trial, equal treatment, legal certainty. Germany: Principles of lawfulness, legal security, and proportionality guide every administrative act. 🔄 Key Processes Agency rulemaking (APA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking → public comment → Final Rule (must stay within delegated authority). Judicial review (common law) Petition → standing analysis → review of procedural legality (e.g., proper notice, fair hearing) → apply appropriate standard (Wednesbury, etc.). Administrative appeal Submit appeal to higher agency body → review of substantive correctness → decision may be upheld, modified, or remanded. 🔍 Key Comparisons Judicial Review vs. Administrative Appeal Process: Courts check legality; agency appeal checks correctness. Outcome: Review can only invalidate; appeal can order a new decision. Civil‑law (France/Germany) vs. Common‑law approach France: Separate administrative courts; strong protection of procedural rights. Germany: Emphasis on proportionality and legal certainty within a unified court system. Common law: Review rooted in prerogative writs; standards vary (Wednesbury, arbitrary & capricious). ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Judicial review decides if the agency’s decision is right.” – It only assesses legality and procedural fairness, not merits. “All unreasonable decisions are “Wednesbury unreasonable.” – The U.K. uses Wednesbury; Canada rejects “patently unreasonable”; U.S. uses “arbitrary and capricious.” “APA gives agencies unlimited power.” – Agencies must stay within the scope delegated by Congress and follow APA procedures. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Process ≠ Outcome” – Remember the courtroom is a gatekeeper for procedure; the agency remains the decision‑maker on merits. “Four‑leg Pillar of Agency Power” – Think of APA, organic statute, agency rules, and informal practice as the four legs that keep an agency standing. 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Ultra vires can arise not only from statutory overreach but also from procedural violations (e.g., missing required notice). State administrative law varies; the Model State APA is a template, not a binding rule. Supranational orders (EU, etc.) may override national administrative procedures in civil‑law countries. 📍 When to Use Which Assessing a challenge: If the issue is whether the agency followed proper rulemaking steps → invoke APA procedural requirements. If the issue is whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority → examine organic statute and ultra vires ground. If the issue is substantive fairness (e.g., discrimination) → consider administrative appeal within the agency. Choosing a standard of review: U.K. context → apply Wednesbury test. U.S. context → apply arbitrary and capricious test. Canada → avoid “patently unreasonable”; use reasonableness standards. 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Agency → Rulemaking → Public comment → Final rule” pattern signals APA compliance. “Decision → Appeal (within agency) → Judicial review (court)” pattern indicates the two‑tier oversight structure. “Legislature → Delegates authority → Agency → Executes” pattern reveals where ultra vires arguments arise. 🗂️ Exam Traps Trap: Selecting “Wednesbury unreasonable” as the standard in a U.S. question. Why wrong: The U.S. uses “arbitrary and capricious,” not Wednesbury. Trap: Assuming judicial review can overturn a decision because it is “unpopular.” Why wrong: Review is limited to legality, not policy preferences. Trap: Confusing “administrative appeal” with “judicial review” and picking the wrong forum. Why wrong: Appeals stay inside the agency; courts only intervene for procedural/legal errors. Trap: Overlooking supranational influence in civil‑law jurisdictions and treating national law as absolute. Why wrong: EU or other supranational orders can supersede national administrative rules. --- If a heading lacks sufficient detail in the source outline, the entry would read “- Not enough information in source outline.”