Which of the following is a reason for the review of agency decisions?

The review of agency decisions is often grounded in the concept of standing to sue, which refers to the legal right of an individual or entity to bring a lawsuit in court. The rationale behind requiring standing is that only those who are directly affected by an agency's action or inaction should have the ability to challenge that decision in a judicial setting. This ensures that litigation is conducted by parties who have a genuine interest in the outcome, thus making the judicial review process more efficient and focused on real disputes.

Standing typically involves demonstrating that the party has suffered an injury-in-fact, that there is a causal connection between the injury and the challenged action, and that a favorable court decision would likely redress the injury. This framework helps ensure that courts only engage with cases where legitimate legal grievances exist, thereby upholding judicial efficiency and integrity in administrative law contexts.

In contrast, judicial discretion involves the authority of judges to make decisions based on their interpretation of the law and can vary significantly from case to case. Public testimony might be relevant in the context of agency hearings or legislative processes but does not directly relate to judicial review. Executive orders are directives issued by the executive branch to manage operations within the federal government and may not pertain to the standing or the review process