Ludewig v. Wolff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard, a court cannot “upset a decision because of errors that are not material”
• holding that the agency impermissibly “glossed over” prior policy where it failed to “even to acknowledge its past practice and formal policies . . . let alone to explain its reversal of course”
• stating that agencies may depart from their own precedent but in doing so must \supply a reasoned analysis\ justifying the change
• stating that agencies may depart from their own precedent but in doing so must “supply a reasoned analysis” justifying the change
• stating that the court would not vacate an agency decision “because of errors that are not material”
• “[I]f an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).