ABSTRACT
Under special circumstances, the Congress has made some agency activities unreviewable, but most agency actions are ultimately subject to judicial review, especially since judges have the final say as to what the legislature intended to be reviewable or unreviewable. The courts can also declare unconstitutional various attempts by legislative assemblies to make certain administrative actions exempt from judicial review. Judicial review, in the context of administrative law, can be defined accurately as the legitimate sphere of judicial scrutiny of agency actions and the methods that the courts employ to consider the propriety of agency behavior. Courts play a major role because they are now practicing judicial activism. The purpose of judicial review under the traditional model was simple. Under the traditional judicial review perspective, the judiciary should stay as removed as possible from stepping on administrators' toes by hearing cases pertaining to substantive administrative policy questions.
