Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 5:12:11 GMT -5
In the United States, there is a strong culture of judicial deference to standards issued by regulatory agencies[1]. In general, only regulations that are clearly “arbitrary and capricious” will be invalidated by the courts ( arbitrary and capricious standard ). This is because the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “courts should not superimpose their conclusions on those of agencies[2]”, as “the scope of judicial control of administrative acts is minimalist[3]”. Adrian Vermeule, for whom minimalist judicial control is desirable, explains that: agencies have greater democratic legitimacy ( political accountability ) and technical expertise to decide certain matters than judges. This becomes all the more relevant as the issues to be decided by the State, such as climate change, terrorism, biotechnology, (to name a few) have become even more complex.
Despite this traditional culture of self-restraint, US federal courts have required agencies to effectively consider the economic costs of their decisions. Still in 1991, for example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule, which banned the use and production of asbestos in the country. This is because “the economic costs arising from the banning of all asbestos-derived products Honduras Mobile Number List would indisputably outweigh their benefits.” (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA)[5]. In the same sense, in 2011, when deciding Business Roundtable v. SEC, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals declared void a rule of the Securities Exchange Commission, the agency responsible for regulating the securities industry, on the grounds that the economic costs of the rule had been quantified based on “obviously precarious empirical data.
In other situations, the Court understood that, for a given regulation to be valid, it is necessary for the agency to prove, through reliable empirical data, that the regulation will produce the claimed benefits. In this case, it would not be enough for the agency to have a good intention for a standard to be legitimately published. In Chlorine Chemistry Council v. EPA, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned a rule that imposed strict limits on chloroform production[7]. As justification, the Court stated that the best scientific studies ( best available scientific evidence ) showed that chloroform would not produce any risk to human health if produced appropriately. In this scenario, the court understood that the economic costs to the industry of this chemical element would not justify the benefits to the population that the agency aimed to promote.
Despite this traditional culture of self-restraint, US federal courts have required agencies to effectively consider the economic costs of their decisions. Still in 1991, for example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule, which banned the use and production of asbestos in the country. This is because “the economic costs arising from the banning of all asbestos-derived products Honduras Mobile Number List would indisputably outweigh their benefits.” (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA)[5]. In the same sense, in 2011, when deciding Business Roundtable v. SEC, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals declared void a rule of the Securities Exchange Commission, the agency responsible for regulating the securities industry, on the grounds that the economic costs of the rule had been quantified based on “obviously precarious empirical data.
In other situations, the Court understood that, for a given regulation to be valid, it is necessary for the agency to prove, through reliable empirical data, that the regulation will produce the claimed benefits. In this case, it would not be enough for the agency to have a good intention for a standard to be legitimately published. In Chlorine Chemistry Council v. EPA, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned a rule that imposed strict limits on chloroform production[7]. As justification, the Court stated that the best scientific studies ( best available scientific evidence ) showed that chloroform would not produce any risk to human health if produced appropriately. In this scenario, the court understood that the economic costs to the industry of this chemical element would not justify the benefits to the population that the agency aimed to promote.