What standard of review applies to agency determinations involving findings of fact made without a quasi-judicial hearing required by statute or law?

What standard of review applies to agency determinations involving findings of fact made without a quasi-judicial hearing required by statute or law?

• A. Rational basis or arbitrary and capricious
• B. Substantial evidence
• C. De novo
• D. Abuse of discretion

Answer: (A)

When an agency makes findings of fact but a quasi-judicial hearing is not required by statute or law, the review of the agency’s decision is done under the arbitrary and capricious standard (often described as having a rational basis). In this context, the court does not defer to the agency’s findings as much as it would if there had been a formal hearing with substantial evidence. Instead, the court asks whether there is a rational connection between the facts found and the agency’s decision, and whether the decision is not arbitrary or irrational. In practical terms, if the record shows the agency ignored relevant factors, relied on factors not supported by the record, or reached a result with no rational basis in light of the governing statute, the decision can be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. This contrasts with the substantial evidence standard that applies to agency determinations after a formal, quasi-judicial hearing, where courts defer more to the agency’s factual findings. De novo review would imply redoing the findings from scratch, and abuse of discretion pertains to the improper exercise of discretion rather than failure to provide a rational basis.

When an agency makes findings of fact but a quasi-judicial hearing is not required by statute or law, the review of the agency’s decision is done under the arbitrary and capricious standard (often described as having a rational basis). In this context, the court does not defer to the agency’s findings as much as it would if there had been a formal hearing with substantial evidence. Instead, the court asks whether there is a rational connection between the facts found and the agency’s decision, and whether the decision is not arbitrary or irrational.

In practical terms, if the record shows the agency ignored relevant factors, relied on factors not supported by the record, or reached a result with no rational basis in light of the governing statute, the decision can be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. This contrasts with the substantial evidence standard that applies to agency determinations after a formal, quasi-judicial hearing, where courts defer more to the agency’s factual findings. De novo review would imply redoing the findings from scratch, and abuse of discretion pertains to the improper exercise of discretion rather than failure to provide a rational basis.