The State's Arbitrary Lawmaking Power: Legal Limits?

The concept of arbitrariness is complex and multifaceted, with philosophical, legal, and ethical implications. In the context of law, arbitrariness refers to decisions or actions made without a rational basis or established facts, often influenced by personal opinions, whims, or convenience. This notion of arbitrariness is crucial when examining the laws and actions of administrative bodies and government agencies. The US Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws deemed arbitrary, and the `arbitrary and capricious` standard is applied in judicial reviews as a check and balance on government power. The question of whether a state can make an arbitrary law is not merely academic; it has real-world implications for civil rights, privacy, and the protection of individuals and minority groups from discriminatory practices.

Judicial review

In the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act establishes "arbitrary and capricious" as a standard for judicial review, showcasing the system of checks and balances within the Constitution. This standard has been applied in various cases, such as the New York teacher's performance evaluation case in 2016 and the defence of Emhart Industries against an EPA order in 2017.

The "arbitrary and capricious" standard is also used in the arbitrary-or-capricious test, as seen in rulings by Judge Chutkan and Judge Beetlestone, where they assessed whether agency decisions adhered to relevant laws and provided reasoned explanations.

Additionally, the US Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws deemed to have "no rational basis," demonstrating its role in curbing arbitrary lawmaking. The concept of arbitrariness is also relevant in semiotics, where it refers to the disconnect between a sign and its meaning, and in ethics, where it pertains to the methods chosen to achieve a goal.

While states have the authority to create laws, they are subject to judicial review to ensure that their actions are not arbitrary and capricious, protecting citizens' rights and maintaining a balanced and fair legal system.

The US Constitution's checks and balances

The US Constitution divides the federal government into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation of powers ensures that no individual or group has too much power. The US Constitution's checks and balances are designed to prevent this concentration of power in any one branch.

The legislative branch makes laws, but the President, as part of the executive branch, can veto those laws. The legislative branch also has the power to approve or reject Presidential nominations, control the budget, and impeach the President and remove them from office. The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which have the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional. The judicial branch interprets laws, but the President nominates Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. The Senate, which is part of the legislative branch, confirms the President's nominations for judicial positions, and Congress can impeach any of those judges and remove them from office.

The courts are assured independence from the political branches through good-behaviour tenure and security of compensation. Through judicial review, the courts can check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in the other two branches.

The US Supreme Court has overturned laws for having "no rational basis". A study of the US asylum system suggests that arbitrariness in decision-making might be the cause of large disparities in outcomes between different adjudicators. The Administrative Procedure Act and its establishment of "arbitrary and capricious" as a standard for judicial review serves as an example of the concept of checks and balances established by the US Constitution.

Theism vs nihilism

In judicial terms, arbitrariness is determined when a court is asked to render an opinion on the actions of a government agency or administrative body. Administrative agencies are staffed by non-elected officials and are designed to circumvent gridlock and cut through red tape to make the government more efficient. However, these agencies can sometimes act with disregard for due process and the procedures created by elected legislatures or courts.

Now, onto the topic of theism vs nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophy that believes there is no purpose in the universe, and every choice is arbitrary. It asserts that the universe contains no value and is essentially meaningless. Many brands of theism, on the other hand, believe that a deity created the universe for a reason, and that everything has a purpose. Even seemingly random events are part of a divine plan. According to theism, a higher power has established morals, values, and an inherent meaning to life. Atheism, or the lack of belief in a deity, can be seen as overlapping with nihilism, but they are distinct concepts. Atheism does not necessarily claim that life is meaningless or that morals are not objective. While nihilism questions all belief systems, including religion, it can also coexist with a belief in a higher power. Some individuals may identify as both theists and nihilists, believing in a deity but also holding that life lacks inherent meaning or value.

The relationship between theism and nihilism can be complex. While they may seem contradictory, it is possible to hold both beliefs simultaneously. Ultimately, theism and nihilism offer contrasting perspectives on the nature of existence, with theism providing a sense of purpose and meaning, while nihilism challenges the idea that any inherent meaning or value exists.

In the context of state laws, theism could provide a framework for creating laws based on divine principles and morality. For example, a theistic state might outlaw certain actions deemed immoral by their religious texts. In contrast, a nihilistic perspective might question the very concept of morality itself and whether it is even necessary to create laws governing human behavior. A nihilistic state, if such a thing could exist, might have a very different legal system from one based on theistic principles.

The arbitrary-or-capricious test

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes "arbitrary and capricious" as a standard for judicial review, serving as a check on the executive branch. The APA instructs courts to overturn an agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." This standard significantly influences how courts evaluate decisions made by plan administrators and has far-reaching implications for individuals seeking a rightful benefit award.

To successfully challenge a decision under the arbitrary-or-capricious test, the claimant must demonstrate that the administrator's decision was not just incorrect but also arbitrary, capricious, and downright unreasonable. This is a high threshold to meet, requiring evidence that the decision lacked a reasonable basis or was made without a rational connection to the plan's terms and conditions.

Federal courts have enumerated four factors that constitute an arbitrary and capricious decision under the APA:

• The agency has relied on factors that Congress did not intend for it to consider.
• The agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.
• The agency offered an explanation for its decision that contradicted the evidence before it.
• The agency provided an explanation so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.

In practice, courts have applied the arbitrary-or-capricious test in various cases. For example, in 2019, Federal Judge John Bates vacated a Trump administration rule designed to expand association health plans (AHPs) using this test. Additionally, Judge Wendy Beetlestone held that new contraception rules promulgated by the Trump administration failed the test because they exceeded the scope of agency authority granted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Private security forces and the Fourth Amendment

An arbitrary law is one that is not based on established facts but rather on opinions and is often made without any specific criterion or restraint. In the United States, the Supreme Court has the power to overturn such laws, and the "arbitrary and capricious" standard is a crucial tool for the judicial branch to review and check the actions of administrative bodies and government agencies.

Private security forces are often employed by establishments and retail stores. They are usually the first responders to an alleged crime and are responsible for calling the police to the scene. In some cases, private security personnel may even detain a suspect until the police arrive. However, their lack of training and experience compared to public law enforcement officers can lead to violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals during detention.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but it has long been interpreted to apply only to state actors and not private individuals or entities. As a result, private security guards who have not been formally charged with protecting public interests are typically treated as private citizens by the courts, even if they are full-time peace officers. This interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has significant implications for private security practices, such as visual surveillance of customers in fitting rooms and interrogations without Miranda rights, which may violate the rights of individuals but are not subject to the same constitutional constraints as public law enforcement.

To address this issue, some have suggested interpreting the Fourth Amendment more broadly to cover both private and public police practices. This expanded interpretation would provide greater protection for individuals' rights and ensure that private security forces are held to the same standards as their public counterparts. However, it also raises complex legal questions about the role of private security and the scope of constitutional protections in the United States.

Frequently asked questions