In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.
A finding of fact made by a jury or an administrative agency in the context of APA adjudication or formal rulemaking will be normally upheld on appeal unless it is unsupported by "substantial evidence."
Appellate courts will not reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence submitted by the parties.
In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e., through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in order to reach a verdict.
Under de novo review, the appellate court acts as if it were considering the question for the first time, giving no deference to the decision below.
Questions of statutory interpretation decided by an agency in a manner that does not have the force of law are subject to Skidmore review.
When made by administrative agencies, decisions concerning mixed questions of law and fact are subjected to arbitrary and capricious review.
[citation needed] Where a lower court has made a discretionary ruling (such as whether to allow a party claiming a hardship to file a brief after the deadline), that decision will be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
One consideration is whether "unpreserved" error exists—that is, mistakes made by the lower court that were not objected to as the law requires.
This approach is dictated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, which holds, "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded, [while a] plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention.
[8] Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest.
[8] For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it is directed to the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring consumers' health by requiring certain education for opticians.
[12] In Canada, a decision of a tribunal, board, commission or other government decision-maker can be reviewed on one of several standards depending on the circumstances.