What element is essential for judicial review of agency actions?

Judicial review of agency actions is fundamentally grounded in the requirement that the agency's decisions be supported by substantial evidence. This standard emphasizes the necessity for a substantial and reasonable foundation within the record that justifies the agency's actions or conclusions. In the context of administrative law, courts review whether an agency's decision is based on sufficient evidence presented during the agency's proceedings, ensuring that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.

Substantial evidence means that the evidence in the record is adequate enough to support the agency's action when considering the whole record. This requirement protects the integrity of the decision-making process, assures accountability, and fosters a fair and transparent approach to administrative governance.

On the other hand, the presence of a lawyer, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, or public opinion may play roles in certain contexts but do not constitute essential elements for determining whether the right to judicial review exists. The focus of judicial review is primarily on the agency's record and whether its findings and actions are appropriately substantiated by evidence.