The dilemmas of judicial review and control of administrative decisions in the federal regulatory processes: Two decades of controversy in the new era of administrative law

This study provides a historical analysis and a comprehensive assessment of the controversial dilemmas of judicial review and control of administrative decisions in the Federal Regulatory Processes leading up to the New Era of Administrative Law Reform of the 1970s. The intent of this study is not just to identify the dilemmas of judicial interaction, but to analyze the rationale and the methodology used by the courts to obtain control. It also provides a comparative longitudinal analysis of the changing trends of judicial interactions during the period of the 1980s as contrasted with the 1970s and the success and implementation efforts of its policies.;Statement of problem. Scholarly research and public investigators have raised much controversy over the dilemmas of judicial review which are described as the significant changes in the overall scope of the judicial review process and control of administrative actions. The basic political argument is that the prevailing scope of judicial review has embroiled the courts in serious public controversy and raised questions of judicial review as that of an imperious activist judiciary.;Proposition and method. This study examines the proposition that the prevailing scope of judicial review does not suggest that of an imperious activist judiciary? Rather it reflects the great value of judicial review in holding government bureaucracies accountable for their actions?;The study presents a historic examination and a comparative longitudinal analysis of the developments of the prevailing scope of judicial review of federal administrative decisions. It examines judicial review of administrative decisions of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services and Education) on benefit rights and the Environmental Protection Agency on environmental protection rights, comparing cases for the decade of the 1980s with those of the 1970s.;Conclusion. The study provides significant evidence that the current scope of judicial review does not suggest that of an imperious activist judiciary. The significant changes in the scope of judicial review and control of administrative actions are those values which affirm the power of judicial review. Probing the long range effects of a variety of court decisions, it found that judicial review, as a vehicle of change, has made significant contributions toward changing arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable administrative acts into models of effective case law and judicial policy. These contributions influence significant administrative law reform.