In Administrative law, standing is defined as a legally protectable interest that a person has in a dispute that gives them the legal right to file a petition or bring a lawsuit before the court of law to obtain a legal remedy. The standing doctrine concept derived from Article III § 2 of the U.S. Constitution that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases involving controversy matters. Daniel E. Hall, Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy, 251-252 (6th ed. 2015).
On the subject of how does an individual has standings in certain actions, the courts have ruled that a citizen who has not suffered a concrete injury lacks the standing to request the federal court to remedy any issue that does not have a legitimate case …show more content…
However, it has been determined that if at least one person has suffered concrete mass injuries or a specific physical harm caused by the environment they may have a lawful reason to file suit per Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Bradford C. Mank, “STANDING AND GLOBAL WARMING: IS INJURY TO ALL INJURY TO NONE?” Environmental Law, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–84. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43267567.
An administrative agency action can be reviewed when an individual makes a claim that they have been discriminated against or adversely affected by the actions of an administrative agency. However, proof of a legal wrong is required and may be considered a violation of a legal right. Daniel E. Hall, Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy, (6th ed. 2015).
Finally, there are three standards of review that the court applies to an agency’s decision. The first standard is De Novo it allows the court to make a judgment as a new based on its own opinion and not the discoveries of the agency. The second standard is Substantial Evidence which is an affirmation by the court of the agency decision based on whether a rational individual would attain the same outcome. The last and final standard is arbitrary, Capricious, Abuse of Discretion, in this standard as long as an agency can support their action with records that ensure no agency abuse a court will affirm
On the subject of how does an individual has standings in certain actions, the courts have ruled that a citizen who has not suffered a concrete injury lacks the standing to request the federal court to remedy any issue that does not have a legitimate case …show more content…
However, it has been determined that if at least one person has suffered concrete mass injuries or a specific physical harm caused by the environment they may have a lawful reason to file suit per Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Bradford C. Mank, “STANDING AND GLOBAL WARMING: IS INJURY TO ALL INJURY TO NONE?” Environmental Law, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–84. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43267567.
An administrative agency action can be reviewed when an individual makes a claim that they have been discriminated against or adversely affected by the actions of an administrative agency. However, proof of a legal wrong is required and may be considered a violation of a legal right. Daniel E. Hall, Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy, (6th ed. 2015).
Finally, there are three standards of review that the court applies to an agency’s decision. The first standard is De Novo it allows the court to make a judgment as a new based on its own opinion and not the discoveries of the agency. The second standard is Substantial Evidence which is an affirmation by the court of the agency decision based on whether a rational individual would attain the same outcome. The last and final standard is arbitrary, Capricious, Abuse of Discretion, in this standard as long as an agency can support their action with records that ensure no agency abuse a court will affirm