Substantive Review - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Substantive Review, a cornerstone of administrative law, refers to the power of courts to assess the factual and policy basis underpinning administrative agency decisions. More than a simple check for procedural regularity, it probes whether the agency's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and consistent with legislative intent. Often intertwined with notions of "arbitrary and capricious" review and frequently conflated with procedural review, the true scope and intensity of substantive review remain a source of ongoing debate and interpretation.
The seeds of substantive review can be traced to the early 20th century, a time of burgeoning administrative power. While not explicitly codified, concepts akin to it emerged in court decisions concerning railroad rate regulation, particularly in the landmark case Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. (1909). This era, marked by Progressive Era reforms and anxieties about concentrated economic power, saw courts grappling with how to balance agency expertise with the need to protect individual liberties and property rights from potentially overzealous regulation.
The interpretation of substantive review has undergone significant evolution, often reflecting broader shifts in judicial philosophy and attitudes towards the administrative state. The New Deal era witnessed a general deference to agency expertise, but subsequent decades saw a resurgence of judicial scrutiny, fueled by concerns about agency capture and the need for greater accountability. Noteworthy figures like Justice Antonin Scalia championed textualist interpretations that arguably limited the reach of substantive review, while others advocated for a more robust role in safeguarding individual rights. The impact of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, although primarily focused on procedural requirements, also subtly influenced how courts approached the substance of agency decisions. Consider, for instance, the ongoing debate surrounding the "hard look" doctrine, a judicial creation that compels agencies to thoroughly consider all relevant factors before making a decision.
The legacy of substantive review is woven into the fabric of modern administrative law, constantly reshaping the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch. From environmental regulations to consumer protection initiatives, its influence is pervasive. Today, as agencies grapple with increasingly complex challenges and politically charged issues, the question of how vigorously courts should scrutinize the factual and policy underpinnings of their decisions remains intensely relevant. As we navigate an era of unprecedented technological change and societal complexities, one cannot help but wonder: what future interpretations of substantive review await us?