Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm | |
---|---|
Argued April 26, 1983 Decided June 24, 1983 | |
Full case name | Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc., et al. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company et al; Consumer Alert, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al.; United States Department of Transportation, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. |
Docket no. | 82-354-56 |
Citations | 463 U.S. 29 (more) 103 S. Ct. 2856; 77 L. Ed. 2d 443; 13 Envtl L. Rep. 20,672 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dept. of Transportation, 680 F.2d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 459 U.S. 987 (1982). |
Holding | |
The standard of review for rescinding notice and comment rules is the same as that for enacting rules. The rescission was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider the alternative of requiring airbags and dismissing too quickly the benefits of automatic seat belts. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by unanimous (Parts I-IV, V-A); Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens (Part V-B, VI) |
Concur/dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Powell, O'Connor |
Laws applied | |
Administrative Procedure Act |
Administrative law of the United States |
---|
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars. In it, the Court struck down an order by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rescinding regulations that required either airbags or automatic seat belts in new cars.[1]
It held that the same arbitrary and capricious standard for reviewing agency actions applied to rescind regulations as that to enact regulations. It also held that the rescission of the rule requiring some sort of passive restraint was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the alternative of requiring all cars to have airbags. Finally, it held that the agency had too quickly dismissed the safety benefits of automatic seat belts.
The case is noteworthy not only for its effects on car safety but also in clarifying the Court's approach to reviewing agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search