The phrase "in a proper case" matters. A challenger ordinarily must have standing, identify reviewable final agency action, and use any required administrative path before obtaining judicial relief. Some statutes specify the reviewing court or limit review in defined circumstances. These threshold questions prevent a court from issuing a free-standing policy opinion. They also mean that a serious administrative problem and a judicially reviewable claim are not always the same thing.

The usual remedy illustrates the division of labor. If a reviewing court finds a legal defect, it may set aside the action and return the matter to the agency. On remand, the agency normally makes the new administrative decision under the correct rule. A court may require reasoned decision-making without taking over the agency's fact gathering, technical judgment, or policy role. Congress, meanwhile, remains able to revise the statute within constitutional limits.

Different questions call for different forms of review. Under the APA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), courts exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes; ambiguity alone no longer triggers automatic Chevron deference to a reasonable agency interpretation. That rule does not erase agency discretion. If the best reading of the statute delegates a policy choice to the agency, a court identifies the delegation's boundaries and reviews whether the agency reasoned lawfully within them.

A court examining arbitrary or capricious decision-making asks whether the agency considered the relevant problem and connected the record to its conclusion. A substantial-evidence inquiry focuses on evidentiary support in proceedings to which that standard applies. A beginner need not memorize every standard at once, but must recognize that "the judge disagrees" is never the complete test. Legal meaning, delegated policy judgment, and fact finding are different tasks.

Imagine an agency receives conflicting scientific studies, mentions only the study supporting its preferred result, and never addresses a major objection raised during the proceeding. A court need not decide the best scientific policy to require a reasoned explanation. Conversely, disagreement with a policy choice is not enough if the agency stayed within its authority, used lawful procedure, and explained the connection between evidence and result.

Presidential supervision and judicial review can point in different directions without being contradictory. The president asks whether administration reflects lawful executive priorities; the court asks whether the resulting action complies with governing law. Accountability works through multiple principals precisely because no single overseer possesses every tool.

On an exam, identify the alleged defect before choosing the remedy. Exceeding delegated authority, skipping required notice, relying on an impermissible factor, and failing to explain contradictory evidence are different reasons for review. The usual answer is correction of the legal or procedural defect, not judicial selection of the preferred regulatory outcome.

Retrieval check. When a court remands an agency action, what remains for the agency to decide, and what legal error must it correct?

Video lesson: Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21