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 Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
surface form: Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
surface form: 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 of America
surface form: 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 Byron R. White
surface form: Justice 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 Insurance
surface form: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

United States Department of Transportation
standardClarified arbitrary and capricious standard
statuteInvolved National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
surface form: 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 Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
this entity surface form: Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. alsoKnownAs Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
this entity surface form: State Farm case