Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies
Administrative agencies play a substantial role in the formulation and implementation of national policy. Central to this role is their exercise of discretion. A normative consensus exists that such discretion should be constrained by administrative deference to the rule of law. The courts of appeal...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of politics 1999-02, Vol.61 (1), p.207-220 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 220 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 207 |
container_title | The Journal of politics |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Humphries, Martha Anne Songer, Donald R. |
description | Administrative agencies play a substantial role in the formulation and implementation of national policy. Central to this role is their exercise of discretion. A normative consensus exists that such discretion should be constrained by administrative deference to the rule of law. The courts of appeals are expected to insure that such discretion is constrained. The analysis reported below examines how effectively they fulfill that expectation. The findings suggest that agency success is related to political considerations, with agencies being successful when their decisions are consistent with the policy preferences of the judges. However, variables that captured elements of the legal model were also related to success. Taken together, it appears that the appeals courts respond to both legal concerns and political preferences. Thus, the courts appear to fulfill the expectation that they will constrain the worst abuses of discretion by imposing the rule of law. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2307/2647783 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60552892</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_2307_2647783</cupid><jstor_id>2647783</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>2647783</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-1150596595bdd763eabfe05525ed989662828249731a9ff6cdee0f2a2f61558d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LAzEQQIMoWKv4BzwED4qH1SS7ySbHUqxWCvWg5yXdTGrKftQkW_Hfu6XFQmcOAzOPN8MgdE3JI0tJ_sRElucyPUEDmgmZME7kKRoQwliSSirO0UUIK9KHUNkATWf6B-vG4Pe2ctGVAbsGv3XGlU5XeL4BH9zyK-LW4gkY8H1zZGrXuBC9jm4DeLSEpnQQLtGZ1VWAq30dos_J88f4NZnNX6bj0SwpU6FiQiknXAmu-MKYXKSgFxYI54yDUVIJwWSfmcpTqpW1ojQAxDLNrKCcS5MO0d3Ou_btdwchFrULJVSVbqDtQiG2MqlYD94egau2801_W8Fopngu6Ra630Glb0PwYIu1d7X2vwUlxfafxf6fPXmzI1chtv4fO4wf9iJdL7wzSzisO1b9ARpie84</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214957812</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Humphries, Martha Anne ; Songer, Donald R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Humphries, Martha Anne ; Songer, Donald R.</creatorcontrib><description>Administrative agencies play a substantial role in the formulation and implementation of national policy. Central to this role is their exercise of discretion. A normative consensus exists that such discretion should be constrained by administrative deference to the rule of law. The courts of appeals are expected to insure that such discretion is constrained. The analysis reported below examines how effectively they fulfill that expectation. The findings suggest that agency success is related to political considerations, with agencies being successful when their decisions are consistent with the policy preferences of the judges. However, variables that captured elements of the legal model were also related to success. Taken together, it appears that the appeals courts respond to both legal concerns and political preferences. Thus, the courts appear to fulfill the expectation that they will constrain the worst abuses of discretion by imposing the rule of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3816</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2508</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/2647783</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPOLA3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Administrative agencies ; Administrative courts ; Administrative law ; Appellate courts ; Conservatism ; Courts ; Discretion ; Discretionary Power ; Government Agencies ; Judges ; Judicial Decisions ; Judicial review ; Law ; Liberalism ; Modeling ; Policy Implementation ; Policy Making ; Politics ; Public Administration ; Research Notes ; Rule of law</subject><ispartof>The Journal of politics, 1999-02, Vol.61 (1), p.207-220</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Southern Political Science Association 1999</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 University of Texas Press</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishers Inc. Feb 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-1150596595bdd763eabfe05525ed989662828249731a9ff6cdee0f2a2f61558d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-1150596595bdd763eabfe05525ed989662828249731a9ff6cdee0f2a2f61558d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2647783$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2647783$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Humphries, Martha Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Songer, Donald R.</creatorcontrib><title>Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies</title><title>The Journal of politics</title><addtitle>J of Pol</addtitle><description>Administrative agencies play a substantial role in the formulation and implementation of national policy. Central to this role is their exercise of discretion. A normative consensus exists that such discretion should be constrained by administrative deference to the rule of law. The courts of appeals are expected to insure that such discretion is constrained. The analysis reported below examines how effectively they fulfill that expectation. The findings suggest that agency success is related to political considerations, with agencies being successful when their decisions are consistent with the policy preferences of the judges. However, variables that captured elements of the legal model were also related to success. Taken together, it appears that the appeals courts respond to both legal concerns and political preferences. Thus, the courts appear to fulfill the expectation that they will constrain the worst abuses of discretion by imposing the rule of law.</description><subject>Administrative agencies</subject><subject>Administrative courts</subject><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Appellate courts</subject><subject>Conservatism</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Discretion</subject><subject>Discretionary Power</subject><subject>Government Agencies</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Judicial Decisions</subject><subject>Judicial review</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Policy Implementation</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Public Administration</subject><subject>Research Notes</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><issn>0022-3816</issn><issn>1468-2508</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LAzEQQIMoWKv4BzwED4qH1SS7ySbHUqxWCvWg5yXdTGrKftQkW_Hfu6XFQmcOAzOPN8MgdE3JI0tJ_sRElucyPUEDmgmZME7kKRoQwliSSirO0UUIK9KHUNkATWf6B-vG4Pe2ctGVAbsGv3XGlU5XeL4BH9zyK-LW4gkY8H1zZGrXuBC9jm4DeLSEpnQQLtGZ1VWAq30dos_J88f4NZnNX6bj0SwpU6FiQiknXAmu-MKYXKSgFxYI54yDUVIJwWSfmcpTqpW1ojQAxDLNrKCcS5MO0d3Ou_btdwchFrULJVSVbqDtQiG2MqlYD94egau2801_W8Fopngu6Ra630Glb0PwYIu1d7X2vwUlxfafxf6fPXmzI1chtv4fO4wf9iJdL7wzSzisO1b9ARpie84</recordid><startdate>19990201</startdate><enddate>19990201</enddate><creator>Humphries, Martha Anne</creator><creator>Songer, Donald R.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>University of Texas Press</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990201</creationdate><title>Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies</title><author>Humphries, Martha Anne ; Songer, Donald R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-1150596595bdd763eabfe05525ed989662828249731a9ff6cdee0f2a2f61558d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Administrative agencies</topic><topic>Administrative courts</topic><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Appellate courts</topic><topic>Conservatism</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Discretion</topic><topic>Discretionary Power</topic><topic>Government Agencies</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Judicial Decisions</topic><topic>Judicial review</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Policy Implementation</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Public Administration</topic><topic>Research Notes</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Humphries, Martha Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Songer, Donald R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Journal of politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Humphries, Martha Anne</au><au>Songer, Donald R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of politics</jtitle><addtitle>J of Pol</addtitle><date>1999-02-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>220</epage><pages>207-220</pages><issn>0022-3816</issn><eissn>1468-2508</eissn><coden>JPOLA3</coden><abstract>Administrative agencies play a substantial role in the formulation and implementation of national policy. Central to this role is their exercise of discretion. A normative consensus exists that such discretion should be constrained by administrative deference to the rule of law. The courts of appeals are expected to insure that such discretion is constrained. The analysis reported below examines how effectively they fulfill that expectation. The findings suggest that agency success is related to political considerations, with agencies being successful when their decisions are consistent with the policy preferences of the judges. However, variables that captured elements of the legal model were also related to success. Taken together, it appears that the appeals courts respond to both legal concerns and political preferences. Thus, the courts appear to fulfill the expectation that they will constrain the worst abuses of discretion by imposing the rule of law.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.2307/2647783</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3816 |
ispartof | The Journal of politics, 1999-02, Vol.61 (1), p.207-220 |
issn | 0022-3816 1468-2508 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60552892 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Political Science Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts |
subjects | Administrative agencies Administrative courts Administrative law Appellate courts Conservatism Courts Discretion Discretionary Power Government Agencies Judges Judicial Decisions Judicial review Law Liberalism Modeling Policy Implementation Policy Making Politics Public Administration Research Notes Rule of law |
title | Law and Politics in Judicial Oversight of Federal Administrative Agencies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T06%3A11%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Law%20and%20Politics%20in%20Judicial%20Oversight%20of%20Federal%20Administrative%20Agencies&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20politics&rft.au=Humphries,%20Martha%20Anne&rft.date=1999-02-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=220&rft.pages=207-220&rft.issn=0022-3816&rft.eissn=1468-2508&rft.coden=JPOLA3&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/2647783&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E2647783%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214957812&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_2307_2647783&rft_jstor_id=2647783&rfr_iscdi=true |