미국연방대법원의 행정사건에 관한 심사 기준

Abstract

The U. S. Supreme Court's judicial review is commonly perceived as the most final remedy available to those who seek relief because they have been or will be harmed by illegal administrative actions. However, seeking relief through the courts appears much easier than it really is. If courts refuse to review a person's plea for review, as they frequently do, the aggrieved person will simply have to learn to live with the agency decision which motivated appeal. There are many reasons that the Court will not grant review of agency actions, the standard one being that justices usually like to defer to agency authority and expertise. To solve such a problem, generally the Court has several standards as follows. 1. The deference standard: This is such a basic doctrine, which is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine and in plain common sense. 2. Substantial Evidence Standard: This standard is normally applied to limit the Court's scope of review over agency decisions involving questions of fact. 3. The Whole Record Requirement: This means any reasonable evidence that tends to support the challenged administrative action should be accepted by the Court. 4. Human Rights Standard: This means that the Court's scope of review can be expanded under certain conditions, when fundamental rights are at stake. 5. The De Novo Review Standard: This means a new trial and is rooted in the constitutional requirement that fundamental rights cannot be taken away without due process of law.