Harold Leventhal
Judge Leventhal no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Leventhal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Leventhal accorded expert agencies latitude to adapt to new developments where Congress had left the governing statute silent, deferring to a reasonable agency interpretation rather than substituting the court's own judgment.
“the expert agency entrusted with administration of a dynamic industry is entitled to latitude in coping with new developments in that industry.”
He reviewed pragmatically, willing to sustain an administrative order on the basis of its present real-world impact and the overall public interest even where a future application might prove infirm.
“A court has some latitude to act on equitable principles and overall public interest, and to affirm an administrative order, on the basis of discernible present impact, despite the possibility of infirmity in future application and impact.”
Procedural preferences
Reflecting the 'hard look' doctrine, he required an agency that rejects its hearing examiner's credibility finding to acknowledge the disagreement expressly and state its reasons so the reviewing court can test the decision against the whole record.
“it was incumbent upon the Board first to identify expressly an awareness that it was disagreeing with the ALJ, especially on a point where he had credited one witness over another, and second, to set forth the basis of disagreement with the ALJ”
Where an agency's inquiry was inadequate or its reasoning unexplained, he remanded for reasoned reconsideration rather than resolving the merits himself.
“In light of the inadequacy of the agency’s inquiry and in light of our view that the Commissioner has a greater measure of discretion in applying the statutory definitions of “food additive” than he appears to have thought, we remand this proceeding for further consideration.”
Cautions
He warned that where an agency rests its decision on several grounds and one is invalid, the reviewing court must consider whether the invalid ground infected the entire decision, and should not affirm on a tainted record.
“When a decision of a government agency is put on several grounds, and one or more is invalid, a reviewing court must appraise whether the invalid ground may not have infected the entire decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The case is remanded for its further consideration.”
“We remand the case to the Commission to enter a modified order as identified above.”
“We have concluded that the record in this case must be remanded to the Board for clarification for the following reasons:”
A historical record
Judge Leventhal no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.