The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., 1982 was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking a regulation requiring passive restraints (such as airbags or automatic seat belts) in cars. The NHTSA had initially issued this rule under its authority to establish motor vehicle safety standards but later rescinded it after determining that it would not lead to significant increased usage of seatbelts by motorists. However, State Farm and other parties challenged this decision, arguing that NHTSA's justification for rescinding the rule was insufficient. The Supreme Court agreed with these challengers, holding that an agency must provide a reasoned explanation for its action when changing established policy.

In the dissenting opinion for Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rule rescinding passive restraint requirements for automobiles. He argued that courts should defer to administrative agencies' expertise and discretion in policy-making unless their decisions are arbitrary or capricious, which he did not believe was true in this case. According to him, NHTSA had reasonably concluded that mandatory passive restraints would not significantly increase overall seatbelt usage due to public resistance and potential non-compliance with automatic systems. Furthermore, he contended that NHTSA adequately explained its change in position by citing new data on these issues since its initial rulemaking process.