Which of the following best describes a judicial review?

Judicial review is fundamentally concerned with the assessment of the legality of decisions made by government agencies or public bodies. This process allows courts to evaluate whether actions taken by these entities comply with legal standards and statutory provisions. It ensures that governmental decisions adhere to the law, protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining a system of checks and balances.

By examining the legality of agency decisions, judicial review can also address issues such as whether an agency acted within its authority or followed proper procedures when making its decisions. This judicial oversight helps to prevent arbitrary or unlawful actions by agencies and serves to uphold the rule of law.

The other options focus on different aspects or processes that do not align with the definition of judicial review. For example, revising agency staff pertains to internal management practices, agency funding relates to financial support for governmental operations, and public feedback is about soliciting citizen input rather than evaluating the legality of decisions. Each of these does not capture the essence of judicial review, which strictly involves legal assessments of agency decisions.