Elizabeth L. Henley v. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services Kessler, Dr., Commissioner of Food and Drug United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because the question of whether an agency policy is arbitrary and capricious is purely a legal issue, fact discovery is not necessary
• holding Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delete from oral contraceptives label warning of possible causal relationship between use of drug and cancer as such specific warning was not warranted in light of current scientific studies
• reviewing court must determine that the agency has made a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made
• deference to the agency is highest when the decision was “propelled by the agency’s scientific expertise”
• deference to agency should be highest whena decision was “propelled by the agency’s scientific expertise”
• “we might not have chosen the [agency’s] course had it been ours to chart . . . [b]ut that is hardly the point.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).