Judicial Review of Administrative Action by the Federal Supreme Court

1921 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
E. F. Albertsworth
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Federal Supreme

scholarly journals The Scope and Meaning of Reasonableness Review

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article draws attention to the post-Dunsmuir framework regarding the standard of review of administrative action and the Supreme Court of Canada’s reluctance to engage in grand theorizing about the general principles of judicial review. The article explores the uncertainty surrounding the application of the standard of reasonableness and what factors can or should be taken into consideration during its application. The article identifies four key problems — the scope of the post-Dunsmuir framework, the scope of its correctness category, the difficult relationship between the reasons given for a decision and the substantive reasonableness of the decision in question, and the emergence of difficult distinctions bedevilling the application of the reasonableness standard. Through identifying weaknesses in the current administration of reasonableness review, it is hoped that the courts, sooner rather than later, will adopt a unified approach for using the reasonableness standard of review.

Part IV Separation of Powers, Ch.24 Review of Administrative Action

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalan Prateek ◽  
Rai Ritin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Consistent Basis ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Review

This chapter examines the concept of administrative review in the context of the Indian Constitution, with particular emphasis on how administrative actions are reviewed under Article 14. It first considers whether administrative review is different from legislative review, and especially whether the grounds of judicial review under Article 14 apply to the same extent when it comes to the validity of legislation compared with administrative action. It then discusses the scope of the power of administrative review under the concept of ‘reasonableness’ and whether this concept has been applied on a consistent basis. It also comments on the inherently abstract and imprecise nature of the concept of ‘reasonableness’ and how this has contributed to the lack of a judicially manageable test or standard for analysing the various cases adjudicated by the Indian Supreme Court. Finally, the chapter discusses the nature of executive power and how it may influence an adjudication of reasonableness.

scholarly journals The Judicial Review of Law-Making Process in Iraq under the Constitution of Republic of Iraq-2005

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Adnan Qadir
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Legislative Power ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Law Making

The law-making process as a whole vested in the legislative power in the presidential form of government, however in the parliamentary form of government, the executive power participates in the law-making through introducing bills along with legislative initiatives. The Constitution in Iraq grants an original authority to legislate federal laws to the Council of Representatives, however the executive power namely the President and the Council of Ministries participates in the process through introducing government bills to the Council of Representatives. Although the Constitution clearly identifies two methods through which bills shall be presented to the Council of Representatives, there have been disagreements over the constitutionality of laws legislated based legislative initiatives not government bills. The Federal Supreme Court has decided differently on different occasions by depriving the legislative power of its right to initiate in some cases or by putting restrictions in some other cases. This research analyzes the line drawn between the Council of Representatives and the executive power in the process of law-making at its first stage and then examines the Federal Supreme Court’s understanding in the light of the text of the Constitution.

scholarly journals Escolha regulatória, controle judicial e a nova LINDB

2019 ◽  
Vol 278 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Rômulo Guilherme Leitão ◽  
Alessandro Samartin de Gouveia
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regulatory Agency ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Federal Supreme

<p>Este artigo trata da escolha regulatória e do controle pelo Judiciário dos atos dela decorrentes à luz da Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro (LINDB). O objetivo geral é verificar como deve se pautar o julgador na discussão da validade de atos normativos da agência reguladora em processos comuns e, para esse fim, analisa-se o poder regulatório da agência no Brasil, a escolha regulatória como categoria jurídica singular, sua competência normativa e o posicionamento do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o assunto, especialmente as ADIs no 4.874 e 5.906; examina-se, ainda, a legalidade como princípio constitucional construído a partir de sua evolução, sua crise e sua definição na Constituição de 1988; e, por fim, investiga-se o controle judicial dos atos normativos consequentes de escolhas regulatórias, em hipóteses de controle concentrado e difuso de constitucionalidade, sendo este último o ambiente em que os arts. 20, 21, 23, 24 e 27 da Lei no 13.655, de 25 de abril de 2018, encontram melhor espaço para suas aplicações.</p><p> </p><p>This article deals with the regulatory choice and the Brazilian system of judicial review of the acts arising therefrom in light of the new Brazilian law´s interpretation (LINDB). The general objective is to verify how the judge should be guided in the discussion of the validity of regulatory acts of the regulatory agency in common proceedings and, for this purpose, the regulatory power of the agency in Brazil is analyzed, the regulatory choice as a unique legal category, its regulatory competence and the position of the Federal Supreme Court on the matter, especially the ADIs no. 4.874 and 5.906; it also examines legality as a constitutional principle built on its evolution, its crisis and its definition in the 1988 Constitution; and, finally, it investigates the judicial review of normative acts resulting from regulatory choices, in cases of concentrated and diffuse judicial review of constitutionality, the latter being the environment in which Articles 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 of Law No. 13.655, of April 25, 2018, find better space for its applications.</p>

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE: LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES IN DIALOGUE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (57) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Paulo Gonet BRANCO ◽  
Ilton Norberto ROBL FILHO
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Control Parameter ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
National Council ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Robust System ◽  
Federal Supreme

ABSTRACT Objectives: The constitutional powers of the National Council of Justice challenge a constitutionally appropriate interpretation of its functions and constitutional consequences. This article analyzes the incidental control of constitutionality of administrative acts by such Council, based on article 37 of the Constitution of 1988, with the possibility to decline application of the law interpreted as unconstitutional. Methodology: The methodology used in this study is phenomenological-hermeneutic with literature review and analysis of the jurisprudence of the National Council of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court. Results:The thesis sustained in this paper states that the control of constitutionality of laws by administrative bodies loses relevance with the adoption of a robust system of judicial review in incidental and abstract forms, as currently observed in Brazil. On the other hand, exceptionally, due to the powers of article 103-B, I and II of § 4 of the Federal Constitution, the National Council of Justice may carry out judicial review by administrative bodies, having as its control parameter especially article 37 of Federal Constitution, but with limitations and due deference to the precedents of the Federal Supreme Court to apply the constitutional principles of government and to resolve the conflict between constitutional norms. Contributions: The study mentions the peculiarities of the National Council of Justice (instituted by Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004) that are of special interest to analyze its institutional design and its place in rule of law, discussing the possibility of judicial review of administrative acts by the National Council of Justice with the nonapplication of laws not yet declared unconstitutional by the Courts.KEYWORDS: National Council of Justice; judicial review by administrative bodies; jurisdiction; Federal Supreme Court. RESUMO Objetivos: As competências constitucionais do Conselho Nacional de Justiça desafiam uma interpretação constitucionalmente adequada das funções e das suas consequências constitucionais. Este artigo analisa o controle incidental de constitucionalidade dos atos administrativos do mencionado Conselho, a partir do art. 37 da Constituição de 1988, com a possibilidade de afastamento da lei interpretada como inconstitucional. Metodologia: A metodologia utilizada neste estudo é fenomenológico-hermenêutica com revisão da literatura e análise da jurisprudência do Conselho Nacional de Justiça e do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Resultados:A tese sustentada neste trabalho afirma que o controle de constitucionalidade de leis por órgãos administrativos perde relevância com a adoção de robusto sistema de controle judicial de constitucionalidade nas modalidades incidental e abstrata, conforme se observa atualmente no Brasil. De outro lado, excepcionalmente em razão das competências dos incisos I e II do § 4º. do art. 103B, da Constituição de 1988, o Conselho Nacional de Justiça pode realizar controle administrativo de constitucionalidade, tendo como parâmetro de controle especialmente o art. 37 da Constituição de 1988, mas tendo limite e devendo deferência à jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal para concretizar os princípios constitucionais da administração pública e para solucionar a colisão entre normas constitucionais. Contribuições: O estudo traz as peculiaridades do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (instituído pela Emenda Constitucional nº. 45/2004), que são de especial interesse para analisar-se sua estrutura institucional e seu lugar no regramento do Direito ao discutir a possibilidade de revisão judicial de atos administrativos pel Conselho Nacional de Justiça co a não aplicação de leis ainda não declaradas inconstitucionais pelos tribunais. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Conselho Nacional de Justiça; controle de constitucionalidade administrativo; jurisdição; Supremo Tribunal Federal.

scholarly journals Two Myths of Administrative Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark P Mancini
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Do So

In an upcoming set of cases, the Supreme Court of Canada will review its approach to the standard of review of administrative action. In this paper, the author suggests that the Court must go back to the foundation of judicial review in redesigning the standard of review, namely, the task of courts to police the legal boundaries of the administrative body. To do so, courts must authentically interpret the legislative grant of authority to the administrative decision-maker, particularly to determine the appropriate intensity of review. To that end, the author suggests that the Court should discard two myths that have pervaded modern administrative law: (1) that administrative decisionmakers should be granted deference based on purported expertise in matters of statutory interpretation; and (2) that jurisdictional questions exist separately from questions of law. The myths may impose a different standard of review than the one discernible with the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. The author argues that these court-created devices should not exist at the expense of the constitutionally prescribed duty of the courts to exercise their policing function and engage in genuine statutory interpretation to determine the appropriate standard of judicial review in a given case.

Courting Constitutionalism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moeen Cheema ◽  
David Dyzenhaus ◽  
Thomas Poole
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
Constitutional Politics ◽  
Social Transformations ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Historical Developments

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has emerged as a powerful and overtly political institution. While the strong form of judicial review adopted by the Supreme Court has fostered the perception of a sudden and ahistorical judicialisation of politics, the judiciary's prominent role in adjudicating issues of governance and statecraft was long in the making. This book presents a deeply contextualised account of law in Pakistan and situates the judicial review jurisprudence of the superior courts in the context of historical developments in constitutional politics, evolution of state structures and broader social transformations. This book highlights that the bedrock of judicial review has remained in administrative law; it is through the consistent development of the 'Writ jurisdiction' and the judicial review of administrative action that Pakistan's superior courts have progressively carved an expansive institutional role and aggrandised themselves to the status of the regulator of the state.

scholarly journals CONTROLE JUDICIAL DA EFETIVAÇÃO DO DIREITO À SAÚDE E O PRINCÍPIO DA ESCASSEZ

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 198
Author(s):  
Alexandre Machado De Oliveira ◽  
Celso De Barros Correia Neto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
Finance Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme

RESUMO: O artigo discute os parâmetros do controle judicial da efetivação do direito à saúde, considerando especialmente o princípio da escassez. A metodologia adotada abrange revisão bibliográfica da doutrina de direito constitucional, financeiro e sanitário, conjugada com a análise da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal. O artigo compreende oito tópicos, que envolvem uma abordagem do direito fundamental à saúde; a escassez dos recursos para a efetivação deste direito fundamental social; para, enfim, ingressar na questão do controle judicial de sua efetivação, abordando os desafios da realização de uma justiça distributiva, a necessidade de uma abordagem centrada na população, os critérios estabelecidos pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, resultando na proposta de uma decisão que se afaste da regra de resgate e passível de uma audiência universal.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito Financeiro. Direito à Saúde. Princípio da Escassez. Controle Judicial. SUMMARY: This article studies the judicial control of the effetuation of the right to health considering the lack of scarce resources. The methodology includes a literature review of the constitutional, finance and health law doctrine, combined with the analysis of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. This article comprises eight topics, which involve a fundamental right to health approach; the scarce resources for the effetuation of this fundamental social right; finally, to enter the issue of judicial review of its effectiveness, addressing the challenges of achieving distributive justice, the need for an approach based on population, the criteria established by the Supreme Court, resulting in the proposal for a decision that departs the rescue rule and be subject to an universal audience.KEYWORDS: Public Finance Law. Right to Health. Scarcity Principle. Judicial control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document