Member-only story

Justiciability and Standards of Review: A Comprehensive Guide

Willie Blair

·12.6k Followers· Follow

Published in National Security Exceptions In International Trade And Investment Agreements: Justiciability And Standards Of Review (SpringerBriefs In Law)

6 min read · 2 weeks before

1.3k View Claps

85 Respond

Save

Listen

Justiciability and standards of review are two important concepts in law that determine whether a court has the authority to hear and decide a case, and the level of scrutiny that will be applied to the decision of the lower court.

Justiciability refers to the question of whether a particular claim is appropriate for resolution by a court. Not all claims are justiciable; some are considered to be "political questions" that are not suitable for judicial determination. Other claims may be non-justiciable because they are too vague or speculative, or because they lack a sufficient connection to a legal right or interest.

Standards of review refer to the level of scrutiny that a court will apply to the decision of the lower court. There are three main standards of review:

National Security Exceptions in International Trade and Investment Agreements: Justiciability and Standards of Review (SpringerBriefs in Law)

by Nadialice Francischini de Souza

5 out of 5

Language	:	Portuguese
File size	:	490 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Print length	:	26 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

De novo review means that the appellate court will review the record of the lower court and make its own independent determination of the facts and the law.
Abuse of discretion review means that the appellate court will only overturn the decision of the lower court if it finds that the lower court abused its discretion.
Arbitrary and capricious review means that the appellate court will only overturn the decision of the lower court if it finds that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, or not supported by the evidence.

The choice of standard of review depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the claim, the level of deference that is due to the lower court, and the importance of the issue at stake.

The doctrine of justiciability is based on the principle of separation of powers. The courts are not supposed to interfere with the decisions of the other branches of government, such as the legislature and the executive. This principle is reflected in the fact that some claims are considered to be "political questions" that are not suitable for judicial determination.

Political questions are typically those that involve the exercise of discretionary power by the government. For example, the courts will not interfere with the decisions of the President in matters of foreign policy or national security. The courts will also not interfere with the decisions of the legislature in matters of taxation or spending.

In addition to political questions, there are a number of other types of claims that may be non-justiciable. These include:

Claims that are too vague or speculative. The courts will not hear claims that are too vague or speculative to be capable of resolution. For example, a claim that the government is "unfair" or "unjust" is too vague to be justiciable.
Claims that lack a sufficient connection to a legal right or interest. The courts will not hear claims that lack a sufficient connection to a legal right or interest. For example, a claim that the government has violated the "public interest" is not justiciable because the public interest is not a legal right or interest.

The choice of standard of review depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the claim, the level of deference that is due to the lower court, and the importance of the issue at stake.

De novo review is the most stringent standard of review. The appellate court will review the record of the lower court and make its own independent determination of the facts and the law. De novo review is typically used in cases where the lower court has made a legal error, or where the appellate court believes that the lower court's decision is clearly erroneous.

Abuse of discretion review is a less stringent standard of review than de novo review. The appellate court will only overturn the decision of the lower court if it finds that the lower court abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion occurs when the lower court has made a decision that is arbitrary or capricious, or not supported by the evidence.

Arbitrary and capricious review is the least stringent standard of review. The appellate court will only overturn the decision of the lower court if it finds that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, or not supported by the evidence. Arbitrary and capricious review is typically used in cases where the lower court has made a decision that is based on policy considerations, or where the appellate court believes that the lower court's decision is entitled to great deference.

Justiciability and standards of review are important concepts in law because they help to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. Justiciability ensures that the courts only hear cases that are appropriate for judicial determination, and standards of review ensure that the decisions of the lower courts are subject to meaningful appellate review.

Without justiciability, the courts would be able to hear any claim that was brought before them, regardless of its merit. This would lead to a chaotic and inefficient judicial system. Standards of review help to ensure that the decisions of the lower courts are consistent with the law and with the principles of fairness and justice.

Justiciability and standards of review are two important concepts in law that play a vital role in ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice. Justiciability ensures that the courts only hear cases that are appropriate for judicial determination, and standards of review ensure that the decisions of the lower courts are subject to meaningful appellate review.

National Security Exceptions in International Trade and Investment Agreements: Justiciability and Standards of Review (SpringerBriefs in Law)

by Nadialice Francischini de Souza

5 out of 5