arbiter
JournalsAccount

Judicial Review: Substance and Procedure

Adam Perry & Angelo Ryu

The Modern Law Review2026https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.70020article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

In this article we distinguish two questions about judicial review. First, substance: what acts or decisions are properly subject to the grounds of review? Second, procedure: what acts or decisions are properly reviewable through the judicial review procedure? Then we settle both. Our answer to substance is that two principles determine the scope of the grounds of review, the first a principle of regularity, the second a principle of non‐arbitrariness. Our answer to procedure is that acts or decisions are amenable to judicial review when two conditions are met, the first that the grounds of review apply, the second that no alternative procedure adequately enforces those grounds.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.70020

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{adam2026,
  title        = {{Judicial Review: Substance and Procedure}},
  author       = {Adam Perry & Angelo Ryu},
  journal      = {The Modern Law Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.70020},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Judicial Review: Substance and Procedure

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.