Legal Definitions - capricious

In legal terms, a decision or action is described as capricious when it is made without a rational basis, adequate consideration of facts, or adherence to established rules. It implies an arbitrary, impulsive, or unreasonable judgment, often demonstrating a disregard for the evidence or circumstances. When a court finds a decision to be capricious, it means the decision-maker acted without a logical connection between the information available and the choice made, or failed to consider important factors.

This standard is frequently used by courts, particularly in administrative law, when reviewing actions taken by government agencies. A court may set aside an agency's action if it finds the agency acted capriciously, meaning its decision was not based on reason or evidence.

Here are some examples illustrating what it means for a decision to be capricious:

• Government Agency Denies a Permit Without Justification:

  Imagine a local planning board denies a homeowner's application for a minor home renovation, even though the plans fully comply with all published zoning ordinances and similar applications have been approved in the past. The board provides no specific reasons for the denial, simply stating "application rejected."

  This decision could be considered capricious because the board acted without a clear, rational basis. They disregarded their own established rules and precedents, and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for their sudden and inconsistent change in approach. A court reviewing this decision would likely find it capricious because there's no "rational connection between the facts found" (compliance with rules) and the "choice made" (denial).

• Sudden Reversal of Environmental Policy:

  A federal environmental agency suddenly revokes a long-standing regulation designed to protect a specific endangered species. The agency makes this change without conducting new scientific studies, holding public hearings, or providing any data to justify the reversal, simply issuing a new directive.

  This action could be deemed capricious because the agency made a significant policy shift without adequate consideration of relevant factors (environmental impact, scientific data, public input) and without providing a reasoned explanation for its decision. A court would look for evidence that the agency considered the relevant factors and made a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Lacking such a connection, the decision appears arbitrary and impulsive.

• Arbitrary Award of a Public Contract:

  A city council awards a lucrative public construction contract to a company that submitted a significantly higher bid and has a less experienced team compared to other qualified bidders. The council members offer no public explanation for their choice, and the selection criteria they initially published were seemingly ignored.

  This decision could be challenged as capricious because the city council appears to have disregarded its own established criteria and the objective facts (lower bids, more experienced teams). Without a reasonable justification for choosing a less advantageous option, the decision seems arbitrary and lacking a rational basis, suggesting it was made without proper consideration of the circumstances.