Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

E376519

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (46)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
administrative law case ⓘ
landmark case ⓘ
agencyInvolved National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ⓘ
alsoKnownAs Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm ⓘ
State Farm case ⓘ
areaOfLaw administrative law ⓘ
motor vehicle safety regulation ⓘ
category United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court ⓘ
United States administrative case law ⓘ
citation 463 U.S. 29 ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1983-06-24 ⓘ
holding Agency rescission of a rule is subject to the same arbitrary and capricious standard of review as agency adoption of a rule ⓘ
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s rescission of the passive restraint requirement was arbitrary and capricious ⓘ
influenced modern doctrine on agency policy reversals ⓘ
issue Scope of judicial review of agency rule rescissions under the APA ⓘ
Whether NHTSA adequately explained its rescission of a passive restraint safety standard ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
languageOfRecord English ⓘ
legalProvisionInterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ⓘ
Administrative Procedure Act ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice Byron R. White ⓘ
linked to: Byron R. White
petitioner Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. ⓘ
principleEstablished Agencies must consider important aspects of the problem when making or rescinding rules ⓘ
Agencies must examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for their actions ⓘ
Agencies must provide a reasoned analysis when changing or rescinding rules ⓘ
Courts must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law ⓘ
Failure to consider reasonable alternatives can render agency action arbitrary and capricious ⓘ
remedy NHTSA’s rescission of the passive restraint standard was vacated and remanded ⓘ
respondent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ⓘ
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ⓘ
United States Department of Transportation ⓘ
standardClarified arbitrary and capricious standard ⓘ
statuteInvolved National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ⓘ
subsequentCitationBy Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California ⓘ
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro ⓘ
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. ⓘ
termOfCourt October Term 1982 ⓘ
topic airbags ⓘ
automatic seat belts ⓘ
passive restraint systems ⓘ
usedFor defining hard-look review of agency action ⓘ
vote 5-4 on remedy and scope of remand ⓘ
9-0 on APA violation ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC → relatedCase → Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ⓘ
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. → alsoKnownAs → Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm ⓘ
linked to: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. → alsoKnownAs → State Farm case ⓘ
linked to: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.