Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action: The Conflicting U.S. and Israeli Approaches

Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action: The Conflicting U.S. and Israeli Approaches AbstractA fundamental issue of judicial review of administrative agency action is what materials a reviewing court is permitted to consider. Under a system of closed review, the reviewing court cannot consider evidence that was not introduced at the agency level, reasons that the agency did not assert when it made the decision, or arguments that were not advanced at the agency level. A system of open review permits the agency to consider new evidence, reasons, and arguments. The United States usually practices closed review of all forms of agency action (including formal and informal adjudication, rulemaking, and policy implementation). In contrast, Israel often allows open review of all forms of agency action (even though Israel's system of administrative law is derived from the British model of closed review). This Article seeks to describe and explain this marked difference. In part, the difference relates to the fact that the United States relies much more heavily than does Israel on the initial decision rather than on judicial review to reach the correct result. As a result, in the United States agencies are required to observe decision-making procedures at the initial decision level that ensure the assembly of a record and a set of reasons suitable for judicial review, whereas this is not the case in Israel. In addition, Israeli practices relating to standing, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which serves as the trial court for important administrative law cases), the scope of judicial review, and doctrines of selective enforcement all differ sharply from the corresponding practices in the United States. These Israeli practices could not function well under a system of closed review. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Comparative Law Oxford University Press

Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action: The Conflicting U.S. and Israeli Approaches

Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/open-and-closed-judicial-review-of-agency-action-the-conflicting-u-s-43B99Bk0z6

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2016 by the American Society of Comparative Law, Inc.
ISSN
0002-919X
eISSN
2326-9197
DOI
10.1093/ajcl/avw001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractA fundamental issue of judicial review of administrative agency action is what materials a reviewing court is permitted to consider. Under a system of closed review, the reviewing court cannot consider evidence that was not introduced at the agency level, reasons that the agency did not assert when it made the decision, or arguments that were not advanced at the agency level. A system of open review permits the agency to consider new evidence, reasons, and arguments. The United States usually practices closed review of all forms of agency action (including formal and informal adjudication, rulemaking, and policy implementation). In contrast, Israel often allows open review of all forms of agency action (even though Israel's system of administrative law is derived from the British model of closed review). This Article seeks to describe and explain this marked difference. In part, the difference relates to the fact that the United States relies much more heavily than does Israel on the initial decision rather than on judicial review to reach the correct result. As a result, in the United States agencies are required to observe decision-making procedures at the initial decision level that ensure the assembly of a record and a set of reasons suitable for judicial review, whereas this is not the case in Israel. In addition, Israeli practices relating to standing, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which serves as the trial court for important administrative law cases), the scope of judicial review, and doctrines of selective enforcement all differ sharply from the corresponding practices in the United States. These Israeli practices could not function well under a system of closed review.

Journal

American Journal of Comparative Law – Oxford University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.