Rulemaking creates a generally applicable standard for future cases; adjudication applies law to particular parties or disputes. Agencies perform both functions because Congress often assigns them technical or high-volume decisions that legislatures and courts cannot make one at a time. The APA supplies default procedures, while an agency's organic statute may add hearings, deadlines, evidentiary rules, or review provisions. Always begin with the action being taken and the statute governing that action.

Not every agency document is a legislative rule. Interpretive rules, policy statements, and internal procedures can explain an agency's view or priorities without carrying the same legal effect as a properly authorized binding rule. Labels are not conclusive. If an agency treats a document as creating new binding duties, a court may examine whether the required authority and procedure exist. This distinction prevents agencies from evading notice and comment merely by calling a command "guidance."

The APA also structures adjudication and judicial review. Section 706 directs a reviewing court to decide relevant legal questions and authorizes it to set aside agency action that violates governing law, exceeds statutory authority, disregards required procedure, or is arbitrary and capricious. The court reviews the record and takes account of whether an error was prejudicial; it does not treat every procedural imperfection as automatic grounds for invalidation.

After Loper Bright (2024), the court uses independent judgment to identify the statute's best meaning rather than deferring automatically whenever text is ambiguous. Agency expertise can still persuade, and Congress can lawfully delegate a range of policy choice. The reviewing court must recognize that delegation, fix its boundaries, and ensure the agency engaged in reasoned decision-making within them. Independent legal interpretation is therefore compatible with respect for delegated policy and fact finding.

Reasoned decision-making requires more than a conclusion. The agency identifies the problem, considers important evidence and alternatives within the proceeding, explains the connection between facts and choice, and acknowledges significant objections. It may change policy, but ordinarily must recognize the change and give a reasoned account. Courts test the explanation contained in the administrative record rather than inventing a better rationale after litigation begins.

Consider an agency that proposes a workplace rule, receives a detailed comment explaining that its chosen threshold cannot be measured, and finalizes the rule without acknowledging the problem. The APA question is not whether commenters possess a veto. It is whether the agency followed the applicable procedure and gave a reasoned response to a significant objection. A court may remand the rule without choosing the threshold itself.

FOIA and the APA promote openness in different ways. FOIA provides access to agency records; the APA governs how many agency decisions are made and reviewed. A requester seeking an existing report uses FOIA. A regulated party challenging the lawful process or basis of a final rule invokes administrative-law review.

Retrieval check. Which statute fits each problem: hidden records, or a final rule adopted through defective reasoning?

The beginner's sequence is simple: classify the agency action, identify the governing procedure, locate the alleged defect, and choose the reviewing institution. That sequence is more reliable than assuming every agency dispute is about whether judges should defer to expertise.

Video lesson: Controlling Bureaucracies: Crash Course Government and Politics #17