Under this standard the court is not free to substitute its own judgment, but is limited to determining whether the Board considered all relevant factors and whether the Board's decision is reasonable and in accordance with relevant statutes. Connecticut DCYS v. DHHS, 788 F. Supp. 573, 577 (D.D.C. 1992). The Adoption Assistance Act delegates to HHS the determination of what constitutes satisfactory compliance with the procedures required by the Act.
Recognizing that the statute granted the Department vast discretion, the district court held that the Secretary's decision to establish a 90% compliance standard was "committed to agency discretion by law." Connecticut Dep't of Children and Youth Servs. v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 788 F.Supp. 573, 578 (D.D.C. 1992). The "statute's broad delegation," moreover, provided no standard to evaluate the GAB's decision on individual cases.
; see Colorado Department of Social Services v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 29 F.3d 519, 522, (10th Cir. 1994) ("We review the agency action to determine if it is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยง 706(2).");ConnecticutDCYS v. DHHS, 788 F. Supp. 573, 577 (D.C. 1992), aff'd 9 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In Colorado Department of Social Services, the Tenth Circuit stated:
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (When reviewing agency action under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, "the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency."); Hudson Transit Lines v. United States ICC, 765 F.2d 329, 336 (2d Cir. 1985) ("while a reviewing court may not supply the basis for the agency's decision, lest it interfere with matters that Congress entrusted to the executive agency, it will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the `path which [the agency] followed can be discerned'") (quoting Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FPC, 324 U.S. 581, 595, 65 S.Ct. 829, 836, 89 L.Ed. 1206 (1945)); Connecticut Dep't of Children Youth Servs. v. Department of Health Human Servs., 788 F. Supp. 573, 577 (D.D.C. 1992) ("Under this standard, the Court is not free to substitute its own judgment, but is limited to determining whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and whether the agency's decision is reasonable and in accordance with the relevant statute. Under the [APA], the standard of review is highly deferential to the agency.").