Administrative Law as a Source of Rights

This article challenges the pervasive assumption that judicial review of administrative action is not concerned with rights. Making a break from this orthodoxy, it proposes a theory of judicial review that suggests that its purpose is to protect distinctive administrative law rights held by those subject to public administrative power. This rights‐based theory makes sense of the structure of applications for judicial review in which, paradigmatically, an individual subject to an administrative decision makes a claim against the state that the public official responsible for that decision failed to meet the relevant administrative law standards, and accordingly demands a remedy. The bulk of the article is dedicated to addressing the major objections to a rights‐based theory, including those arising from public interest standing and the nature of judicial review remedies. The analysis shows that each of these objections fails, clearing the ground for a fuller development of a rights‐based theory of judicial review in future work.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Modern Law Review
Published
2024-10-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12925
Primary Topic
Ombudsman and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Administrative Law as a Source of Rights

Megan Pfiffer
Modern Law Review
Ombudsman and Human Rights
article

Administrative Law as a Source of Rights

Megan Pfiffer
article en

Abstract

This article challenges the pervasive assumption that judicial review of administrative action is not concerned with rights. Making a break from this orthodoxy, it proposes a theory of judicial review that suggests that its purpose is to protect distinctive administrative law rights held by those subject to public administrative power. This rights‐based theory makes sense of the structure of applications for judicial review in which, paradigmatically, an individual subject to an administrative decision makes a claim against the state that the public official responsible for that decision failed to meet the relevant administrative law standards, and accordingly demands a remedy. The bulk of the article is dedicated to addressing the major objections to a rights‐based theory, including those arising from public interest standing and the nature of judicial review remedies. The analysis shows that each of these objections fails, clearing the ground for a fuller development of a rights‐based theory of judicial review in future work.

Modern Law Review
McGill University, University of Toronto, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Ombudsman and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.