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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of politics 1999-02, Vol.61 (1), p.207-220
Hauptverfasser: Humphries, Martha Anne, Songer, Donald R.
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