4 ms·
IANAL but AFAIK the way this typically works (as a general principle of administrative law in… most/many countries?) is that the administrative bodies who are d
by epgui 4y ago
IANAL but AFAIK the way this typically works (as a general principle of administrative law in… most/many countries?) is that the administrative bodies who are delegated the power to make decisions are the authority on them.
If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct, and puts a relatively high bar towards reversing that decision. Typically a decision of an administrative body would only be overturned by a court if that decision was patently unreasonable or fell outside the jurisdiction of the body (eg.: if it violated a different law or some constitutional provision).
YMMV in different countries (I know more about Canada).
- anticensor 4y ago> If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct, Same here, the underlying principle is called the presumption of legitimacy, the organisational counterpart of the presumption of innocence.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct In the US, at least, it varies considerably by the exact kind of decision and the context in which it is being applied, ranging from extremely strong deference (Chevron deference) to anti-deference in some contexts. And opposing Chevron deference was an overt priority of the Trump Administration in judicial selection, so in general it would be reasonable to expect deference overall in the US to wane for some time.