Journal Title
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology
Volume
25
Issue
Symposium Issue
First Page
1
Document Type
Article
Publication Information
2024
Abstract
The "arbitrary and capricious" review standard has been interpreted to govern the judicial review of agency factual findings that are produced through informal rulemaking or informal adjudication. In contrast, agency factual findings that are produced through formal rulemaking or adjudication will be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 706(2)(E), which states that such findings can be set aside if they are "unsupported by substantial evidence." While the standards technically vary-factual findings that are the product of informal procedures will warrant arbitrary and capricious review, while factual findings that are the product of formal procedures will warrant substantial evidence review most courts consider the standards to have converged, and for there to be little difference in what is analytically required between the two. As such, for ease of discussion, this paper will focus on the arbitrary and capricious standard, but with the contextual background that a similar analytical approach is employed for the substantial evidence standard.
Recommended Citation
Zoe E. Niesel, Arbitrary and Capricious x Artificial Intelligence, 25 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 1 (2024).
