Ronald A. Simms v. Arizona Racing Commission

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court interprets the 2021 amendments to A.R.S. § 12-910(F), holding that the amendments did not eliminate substantial-evidence review of agency action. In proceedings brought by or against a regulated party, the superior court must independently determine questions of law and fact without deference to the agency, then assess whether the agency’s final action is supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. The court also holds that appellate courts do not independently review agency factual findings de novo.

Holdings

1. The 2021 amendments to A.R.S. § 12-910(F) did not eliminate substantial-evidence review. The statutory requirement that a court affirm agency action unless it is not supported by substantial evidence remains in effect.
2. In a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party, the superior court must independently determine all disputed questions of fact, without deference to the agency's factual determinations, and then determine whether the agency's final action is supported by substantial evidence based on the facts independently determined by the court.
3. The superior court independently reviews mixed questions of law and fact and may not defer to an agency's legal or factual conclusions based on agency expertise. However, when an agency acts within discretion delegated by the Legislature, the court may not substitute its own policy judgment for the agency's exercise of that discretion.
4. Appellate courts do not independently redetermine agency-related facts de novo. They defer to the superior court's factual findings if reasonably supported by the record and independently review the legal question whether the agency action satisfies § 12-910(F).
5. Section 12-910(F)'s no-deference command applies to the agency, not to the Office of Administrative Hearings or its ALJ. The reviewing court may give an ALJ's findings evidentiary weight, including on credibility issues, but must do so as an exercise of independent judgment rather than statutory deference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2021 amendments to A.R.S. § 12-910(F) eliminated substantial-evidence review.
2. What standard the superior court must apply to an agency's factual findings in a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party.
3. Whether appellate courts must independently review an agency's factual findings de novo in reviewing a superior court judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded