Standard of review

Last updated

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent (stare decisis). In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

Contents

United States

In the United States, the term "standard of review" has several different meanings in different contexts and thus there are several standards of review on appeal used in federal courts depending on the nature of the question being appealed and the body that made the decision.

Questions of fact

Arbitrary and capricious

Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling wherein an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard. [1] In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Substantial evidence

A finding of fact made by a jury or an administrative agency in the context of APA adjudication or formal rulemaking will be normally upheld on appeal unless it is unsupported by "substantial evidence." This means something "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence. [2] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." [2] Under the "substantial evidence" standard, appellate review extends to whether there is any relevant evidence in the record which reasonably supports every material fact (that is, material in the sense of establishing an essential element of a claim or defense). Appellate courts will not reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence submitted by the parties. In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e., through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in order to reach a verdict. If the parties presented conflicting evidence, appellate courts applying a "substantial evidence" standard assume that the jury or administrative adjudicator resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and in turn, appellate courts must defer to such implicit findings about which side's witnesses or documents were more believable, even if they suspect they might have ruled differently if hearing the evidence themselves in the first instance. This is a highly deferential standard.

Clearly erroneous

Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, where a trial court (as opposed to a jury or administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a bench trial, that finding will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by the lower court. [3] For example, if a trial court finds, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a 30-pound rock over 100 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the trial court) stating that such a feat is impossible for most people.[ original research? ] In such a case, the appeals court might find that, although there was evidence to support the lower court's finding, the evidence taken as a whole—including the eyewitness and the expert testimony—leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the trial court.

Questions of law

De novo

Under de novo review, the appellate court acts as if it were considering the question for the first time, giving no deference to the decision below. This standard applies to a lower court's findings on questions of law. This is sometimes referred to as "plenary review" or the "legal error" standard. It allows the appeals court to substitute its own judgment for the lower court's on how to apply the law. For example, as noted in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. , de novo review is required in the United States when First Amendment issues are raised on appeal. [4] Questions of statutory interpretation decided by an administrative agency in a manner that has the force of law used to be subject to Chevron review until Chevron was overturned by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo . Questions of statutory interpretation decided by an agency in a manner that does not have the force of law are subject to Skidmore review. [5]

A new trial in which all issues are reviewed as if for the first time is called a trial de novo.

Mixed questions of law and fact

Court and jury decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are usually subjected to de novo review, unless factual issues predominate, in which event the decision will be subject to clearly erroneous review. When made by administrative agencies, decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are subjected to arbitrary and capricious review.

Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review."[ citation needed ] The standard is somewhere in between de novo review and clearly erroneous review. Under independent review, an appellate court will reexamine the record from the lower court as the appellate court makes its legal determinations.[ citation needed ]

Questions of judicial oversight

Abuse of discretion

Where a lower court has made a discretionary ruling (such as whether to allow a party claiming a hardship to file a brief after the deadline), that decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. It will not be reversed unless the decision is "plain error". One consideration is whether "unpreserved" error exists—that is, mistakes made by the lower court that were not objected to as the law requires. In such a case, the appellate court may still choose to look at the lower court's mistake even though there was no objection, if the appellate court determines that the error was evident, obvious, and clear and materially prejudiced a substantial right, meaning that it was likely that the mistake affected the outcome of the case below in a significant way. [6]

In federal court, if a party commits forfeiture of error, e.g. by failing to raise a timely objection, then on appeal, the burden of proof is on that party to show that plain error occurred. If the party did raise a timely objection that was overruled, then on appeal, the burden of proof is on the other party to show that the error was harmless error. This approach is dictated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, which holds, "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded, [while a] plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention." [7] The appellate court has discretion as to whether or not to correct plain error. Usually the court will not correct it unless it led to a brazen miscarriage of justice.

Questions of constitutionality

Questions of constitutionality are considered a type of question of law, and thus appellate courts always review lower court decisions that address constitutional issues de novo. However, the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the judiciary should give the legislature (i.e., the federal Congress or state legislatures) in determining whether legislation is constitutional. Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This form of standard of review is sometimes also called the standard or level of scrutiny.

These levels of scrutiny are normally applied to legislation, but can also be applied to judicial acts and precedents (as seen in the context of challenges to the constitutionality of awards of punitive damages). In other words, the common law (including case law) is not immune to at least some minimal amount of judicial review for compatibility with the federal Constitution. [8]

Rational basis

Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. This is called rational basis review. [8] For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it is directed to the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring consumers' health by requiring certain education for opticians. [9]

Intermediate scrutiny

Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a "quasi-suspect" classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. As the name implies, it is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny. [10]

Other forms of intermediate scrutiny are applied in other contexts. For example, under the Free Speech Clause, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are subject to a form of intermediate scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny

If a statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. [11] This means the statute must be "narrowly tailored" to address a "compelling state interest." The courts will also apply strict scrutiny if the law targets a suspect classification, such as race. [12]

Canada

In Canada, a decision of a tribunal, board, commission or other government decision-maker can be reviewed on one of several standards depending on the circumstances. In each case, a court must undertake a "standard of review analysis" to determine the appropriate standard to apply. [13] Where the relevant statute provides for an appeal to the courts, questions of law are subject to a standard of "correctness" and questions of fact and mixed fact and law subject to the standard of "palpable and overriding error". [13] These standards correspond to those applied on appeals from lower court decisions. Where the government decision-maker's decision is reviewed by way of judicial review, the relevant standard for all questions is generally "reasonableness". [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate court</span> Court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal

An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear a case upon appeal from a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and considers factual evidence and testimony relevant to the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal. A trial de novo is usually ordered by an appellate court when the original trial failed to decide in a manner dictated by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Cassation (France)</span> Highest judicial court in France

The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four apex courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.

In law, a trier of fact or finder of fact is a person or group who determines disputed issues of fact in a legal proceeding and how relevant they are to deciding its outcome. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence presented, whether something existed or some event occurred.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech. The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, whether real or hypothetical. The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny is applied where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated. In U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate courts. When courts engage in rational basis review, only the most egregious enactments, those not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, are overturned.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to the interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles. They can be applied to many situations rather than particular circumstances or facts. An answer to a question of law as applied to the specific facts of a case is often referred to as a conclusion of law.

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

Canadian administrative law is the body of law "that applies to all administrative decisions, whether issued by front-line officials, ministers, economic regulatory agencies, or administrative tribunals, with interpretations of law and exercises of discretion subject to the same. .. rules." Administrative law is concerned primarily with ensuring that administrative decision-makers remain within the boundaries of their authority and observe procedural fairness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore</span> Guarantee of Equality before the Law

Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Article also identifies four forbidden classifications – religion, race, descent and place of birth – upon which Singapore citizens may not be discriminated for specific reasons. For example, discrimination on those classifications is prohibited in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed by the High Court. This type of unreasonableness of public body decisions was laid down in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947), where it was said that a public authority acts unreasonably when a decision it makes is "so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writ of mandate (California)</span> Type of extraordinary writ in California

The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

References

  1. ↑ Plater, Zygmunt; Norine, William (January 1, 1989). "Through the Looking Glass of Eminent Domain: Exploring the Arbitrary and Capricious Test and Substantive Rationality Review of Governmental Decisions". Boston College Law Review. 16: 674.
  2. 1 2 Richardson v. Perales ,402U.S.389, 401(1971).
  3. ↑ Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.,508U.S.602(1993).
  4. ↑ "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw.
  5. ↑ Congressional Research Service, Judicial Review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Dec. 8, 2020).
  6. ↑ United States v. Olano ,U.S.725, 732(1993).
  7. ↑ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 52 (as amended in 2002).
  8. 1 2 Lundmark, Thomas (2008). Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN   9780195368727 . Retrieved December 29, 2020.
  9. ↑ Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. , 348 U.S. 483 (1955).
  10. ↑ Lundmark, Thomas (2008). Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 119. ISBN   9780195368727 . Retrieved December 29, 2020.
  11. ↑ Lundmark, Thomas (2008). Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 118. ISBN   9780195368727 . Retrieved December 29, 2020.
  12. ↑ Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995)
  13. 1 2 3 "Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65". CanLII. Retrieved April 8, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.