When an agency selectively prosecutes violations of its regulations, how might a court view this decision?

When an agency selectively prosecutes violations of its regulations, a court may view this decision as generally arbitrary and capricious particularly if there is no reasonable basis for the selective enforcement. Courts often require agencies to demonstrate that their enforcement decisions are made based on consistent criteria and not influenced by impermissible factors, such as bias or discrimination.

The concept of arbitrary and capricious behavior refers to actions taken by an agency that do not align with logical reasoning or established standards. Courts are particularly vigilant about ensuring that agencies act within the boundaries of their authority and apply their regulations fairly and equitably. If an agency is found to be selectively enforcing its regulations without a clear, rational justification, this could undermine the legitimacy of its regulatory framework.

While agencies do have discretion in how they enforce regulations, this discretion is not unlimited. If a pattern of arbitrary enforcement is identified, courts may see this as a failure in the agency's duty to uphold the law uniformly. This underlines the core principle of administrative law that agencies must adhere to established protocols and maintain transparency in their enforcement actions.

In contrast, the other options suggest views that are not typically aligned with how courts assess agency behavior under judicial review, particularly when fairness and consistency are compromised. For