Connection lost
Server error
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court ruled that a federal agency’s decision to cancel a safety rule requiring airbags or automatic seatbelts was unlawful. The agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its reversal, particularly its failure to consider obvious alternatives.
Legal Significance: This case established the modern standard for judicial review of an agency’s decision to rescind a regulation. It requires agencies to provide a “reasoned analysis” for changing course, solidifying the “hard look” doctrine under the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) engaged in a lengthy rulemaking process to address occupant safety. This culminated in Modified Standard 208, which required new cars to be equipped with passive restraint systems—either airbags or automatic seatbelts. The rule was projected to save thousands of lives annually. After a change in presidential administrations, NHTSA initiated a new rulemaking and, in 1981, rescinded the passive restraint requirement. The agency’s justification was that its earlier predictions of safety benefits were no longer valid. NHTSA reasoned that manufacturers planned to install detachable automatic seatbelts in 99% of cars, rather than airbags. The agency concluded that because these belts could be easily and permanently detached, there was no reliable basis to predict a significant increase in seatbelt usage. Therefore, the billion-dollar cost of the rule was no longer reasonable or practicable. State Farm and other insurance groups petitioned for review, arguing the rescission was unlawful.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration act arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act when it rescinded its previously promulgated motor vehicle safety standard requiring passive restraints?
Yes. The rescission of the passive restraint standard was arbitrary and capricious. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration act arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act when it rescinded its previously promulgated motor vehicle safety standard requiring passive restraints?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational administrative law decision that constrains agency authority Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Legal Rule
An agency's rescission of a regulation is subject to the same "arbitrary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing
Legal Analysis
The Court first established that rescinding a rule is not equivalent to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An agency’s rescission of a regulation is reviewed under the same