Ma`rifat Hoghoughi

The doctrine of judicial deference constitutes one of the most significant theoretical foundations governing the relationship between courts and specialized administrative agencies within the United States public law system. For decades, this doctrine has served as the principal basis for the judiciary's relative restraint in reviewing the technical and scientific decisions of administrative agencies, particularly those of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nevertheless, recent developments in administrative law, growing public demands for greater accountability of regulatory institutions, increasing concerns regarding the legitimacy of scientific decision-making, and the U.S. Supreme Court's reconsideration of the scope of administrative authority have collectively contributed to the gradual erosion of the traditional model of judicial deference. Drawing upon the theoretical framework developed by James T. O'Reilly and employing a descriptive-analytical methodology alongside an examination of judicial precedents, this study investigates the evolving role of the doctrine of judicial deference in the judicial review of the decisions and regulations issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The central research question is how recent developments in U.S. administrative law have affected the scope of judicial deference accorded to FDA decisions and what role these developments have assigned to the federal judiciary- particularly the U.S. Supreme Court- in assessing the legality and validity of such decisions. The findings demonstrate that, in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually departed from an approach characterized by broad reliance on administrative expertise and has moved toward a more active model of judicial review. Under this emerging framework, FDA decisions are no longer upheld merely by virtue of their technical or scientific character; rather, they are evaluated against criteria such as administrative rationality, the adequacy of scientific evidence, transparency in the decision-making process, compliance with statutory requirements, and institutional accountability