This case concerns the standards governing judicial review of federal administrative retaliation determinations where evidentiary hearings were cancelled, the administrative record was left undeveloped, and the agency had previously granted full retroactive relief for related conduct. By affirming without independently reviewing the full administrative record and without addressing material evidence of regulatory noncompliance, the courts failed to exercise the judicial power vested in Article III courts to provide meaningful review of agency action.

1. Whether reviewing courts may affirm agency determinations without independently reviewing the full administrative record, including prior agency decisions granting full retroactive relief for the same related conduct.

2. Whether due process permits the EEOC administrative judges to cancel scheduled evidentiary hearings and issue merits decisions without developing a legally sufficient administrative record, and whether reviewing courts may uphold such determinations based on post hoc rationalizations.

3. Whether reviewing courts may uphold retaliation determinations while disregarding binding agency regulations governing documentation of review decisions and the resolution of regulatory and scientific disagreements, and while failing to address record evidence that completed professional work was reassigned in the absence of documented disagreement.

Whether reviewing courts may affirm agency determinations without independently reviewing the full administrative record and without addressing material evidence of regulatory noncompliance, and whether due process permits administrative judges to cancel evidentiary hearings and issue merits decisions without developing a legally sufficient administrative record