Judicial deference: **States that require de novo review of agency decisions** (2020)

This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state

Administrative State

Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

Disclaimer: The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.

This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

This page contains information from a Ballotpedia survey about states that required de novo review of agency actions as of 2020. Ballotpedia reviewed the 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which required de novo review of actions taken by administrative agencies.

Understanding whether states require de novo review provides insight into judicial deference at the state level. Judicial deference is one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.

Deference refers to judges upholding agency interpretations of regulations or statutes instead of supplying their own. Supporters of judicial deference suggest that the practice gives agencies more flexibility and allows them to apply their technical expertise to policy problems. Opponents of judicial deference argue that the practice violates the separation of powers because they believe judges who do not interpret statutes for themselves give away core powers of the judicial branch.

Under de novo review, courts weigh the facts of a case and decide the meaning of laws and regulations for themselves instead of deferring to the conclusions and interpretations of administrative agencies.

According to the Ballotpedia survey, 14 state constitutions or APAs required de novo review of agency actions in at least some circumstances as of April 2020.

This page features the following sections:

Background and methodology
Summary of key findings
Table indicating which states required de novo review of agency actions
Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in most cases
Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in some circumstances
Text of state APAs or constitutions that mentioned the scope of judicial review but did not require de novo review of agency actions

In 2025, Ballotpedia updated the pillar system used to understand the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Click here to learn more about this updated structure and to see Ballotpedia's current content related to the administrative state.

Background and methodology

For this survey, Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states required courts examining agency actions to do so on a de novo basis.

State administrative procedure acts (APAs) govern procedures for state administrative agencies to propose and issue regulations, adjudicate disputes, and provide for judicial review of agency decisions. Many state APAs are modeled on the federal APA, which governs the administrative processes of federal executive branch agencies. The text of all 50 state APAs is available here.

After the survey, Ballotpedia identified the following three categories of states:

"Yes" states had a constitution or APA explicitly calling for de novo review.
"No" states had a constitution or APA that limited the scope of judicial review of agency actions.
"Sometimes" states had a constitution or APA that called for de novo review in certain circumstances. These states required de novo review only for cases involving specific laws or for actions taken by certain named agencies.

Summary of findings

Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of April 2020):

5 states had constitutions or APAs that required de novo review of agency actions
37 state constitutions or APAs limited the scope of judicial review of agency actions or required deference
9 states had constitutions or APAs that required de novo review of agency actions in certain cases
7 states had constitutions or APAs that did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions

The Florida Constitution changed following a 2018 ballot measure that abolished judicial deference to agency interpretations of rules or statutes. Ballotpedia included Florida among states that required de novo review even though the Florida Administrative Procedure Act required some deference.

States that required de novo review

The Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming APAs all required de novo review of agency actions most of the time
The Florida Constitution required de novo review of agency actions

States that did not require de novo review

31 state APAs, 62%, discussed the scope of judicial review and did not require de novo review of agency actions
The Idaho, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Carolina constitutions discussed the scope of judicial review and did not require de novo review of agency actions

States that required de novo review in some cases

The Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia APAs all required de novo review of agency actions in some circumstances
The Michigan, New Mexico, and Oklahoma constitutions all required de novo review of agency actions in some circumstances

States that did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions

The Alaska, California, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and New Jersey constitutions and APAs did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions
9 states had APAs that did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions
40 states had constitutions that did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions

Results: States that required de novo review of agency actions

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those with specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs requiring de novo review of agency actions.

means that the particular document required de novo review in most cases
A means that the particular document did not require de novo review

Results with an asterisk indicate that the constitution or APA required de novo review only in specific cases. To read the relevant texts from the state constitutions and APAs, see the sections below the table.

State	Constitution requires de novo review	State APA requires de novo review
Alabama	A	*
Alaska	A	A
Arizona	A
Arkansas	A	A
California	A	A
Colorado	A
Connecticut	A	A
Delaware	A	A
Florida		A
Georgia	A	*
Hawaii	A	A
Idaho	A	A
Illinois	A	A
Indiana	A	A
Iowa	A	A
Kansas	A	A
Kentucky	A	A
Louisiana	A	A
Maine	A	A
Maryland	A	A
Massachusetts	A	A
Michigan	*	A
Minnesota	A	A
Mississippi	A	A
Missouri	A	*
Montana	A	A
Nebraska	A
Nevada	A	A
New Hampshire	A	A
New Jersey	A	A
New Mexico	*	A
New York	A	A
North Carolina	A	*
North Dakota	A	A
Ohio	A	A
Oklahoma	*	A
Oregon	A	A
Pennsylvania	A	A
Rhode Island	A	A
South Carolina	A	A
South Dakota	A	A
Tennessee	A	A
Texas	A	A
Utah	A	*
Vermont	A	A
Virginia	A	*
Washington	A	A
West Virginia	A	A
Wisconsin	A	A
Wyoming	A
Notes: * - States marked with an asterisk only required de novo review in some circumstances.

Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in most cases

This section contains text from state constitutions or APAs requiring courts to review agency actions on a de novo basis.

Some sections might display whole articles from a state constitution or APA, while others only show relevant segments.

Arizona

See also: Arizona Constitution and Arizona Administrative Procedure Act

Section 41-1038 of the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act:

A. Notwithstanding any other law, an agency may not adopt any new rule that would increase existing regulatory restraints or burdens on the free exercise of property rights or the freedom to engage in an otherwise lawful business or occupation unless the rule is either of the following:

1. A component of a comprehensive effort to reduce regulatory restraints or burdens.

2. Necessary to implement statutes or required by a final court order or decision.

B. Any person who is subject to a civil or criminal proceeding arising from the enforcement of a rule in violation of subsection A of this section has an affirmative defense to the enforcement action. Any court or administrative body considering or reviewing the defense shall rule on its merits without deference to any legislative, administrative or executive finding concerning the rule.^[1]

Colorado

See also: Colorado Constitution and Colorado Administrative Procedure Act

Section 24-4-106(7)(d) of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act:


	(d) In all cases under review, the court shall determine all questions of law and interpret the statutory and constitutional provisions involved and shall apply the interpretation to the facts duly found or established.^[2]

Nebraska

See also: Nebraska Constitution and Nebraska Administrative Procedure Act

Section 84-917(5)(a) of the Nebraska Administrative Procedure Act:

(5)(a) When the petition instituting proceedings for review was filed in the district court before July 1, 1989, the review shall be conducted by the court without a jury on the record of the agency, and review may not be obtained of any issue that was not raised before the agency unless such issue involves one of the grounds for reversal or modification enumerated in subdivision (6)(a) of this section. When the petition instituting proceedings for review is filed in the district court on or after July 1, 1989, the review shall be conducted by the court without a jury de novo on the record of the agency.^[3]

Section 84-918(2) of the Nebraska Administrative Procedure Act:


	(2) When the petition instituting proceedings for review was filed in the district court before July 1, 1989, the appeal shall be taken in the manner provided by law for appeals in civil cases and shall be heard de novo on the record.^[4]

Wyoming

See also: Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act

Section 16-3-114(c) of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.^[5]

Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in some circumstances

This section contains text from state constitutions or APAs that require courts to review agency actions on a de novo basis sometimes.

Some sections might display whole articles from a state constitution or APA while others only show relevant segments.

Alabama

See also: Alabama Constitution and Alabama Administrative Procedure Act

Section 41-22-20 of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act:

(i) In proceedings for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, except where appeal or judicial review is by a trial de novo, a reviewing court shall not itself hear or accept any further evidence with respect to those issues of fact whose determination was entrusted by law to the agency in that contested case proceeding; provided, however, that evidence may be introduced in the reviewing court as to fraud or misconduct of some person engaged in the administration of the agency or procedural irregularities before the agency not shown in the record and the affecting order, ruling, or award from which review is sought, and proof thereon may be taken in the reviewing court. ...

(j) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and, except as herein provided, shall in the review of contested cases be confined to the record and the additions thereto as may be made under subsection (i) of this section. Judicial review shall be by trial de novo in the circuit court where review is sought from tax assessments, tax determinations or tax redeterminations, rulings of the Revenue Department granting, denying, or revoking licenses, or rulings on petitions for tax refunds, or, unless a subsequent agency statute provides otherwise, where an agency statute existing on the effective date of Act No. 81-855, 1981 Acts of Alabama, or thereafter enacted provides for a trial de novo on appeal to or review by the courts; provided, however, in the review of tax assessments, tax determinations, or tax redeterminations, rulings of the Revenue Department granting, denying, or revoking licenses, or rulings on petitions for tax refunds, the administrative record and transcript shall be transmitted to the reviewing court as provided in subsection (g) of this section, and, on motion of either party, shall be admitted into evidence in the trial de novo, subject to the rights of either party to assign errors, objections, or motions to exclude calling attention to any testimony or evidence in the administrative record or transcript which is deemed objectionable or inadmissible. Provided further that, with the consent of all parties, judicial review may be on the administrative record and transcript. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.^[6]

Florida

Article V, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution:


	In interpreting a state statute or rule, a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action pursuant to general law may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo.^[7]

Georgia

See also: Georgia Constitution and Georgia Administrative Procedure Act

Section 50-13-13 of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act:


	(c) Subsection (a) of this Code section and the other provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall not apply to any case arising in the administration of the revenue laws, which case is subject to a subsequent de novo trial of the law and the facts in the superior court or in the Georgia Tax Tribunal in accordance with Chapter 13A of this title.^[8]

Section 50-13-19 of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act:


	(g) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.^[9]

Michigan

See also: Michigan Constitution and Michigan Administrative Procedure Act

Article V, Section 29 of the Michigan Constitution:


	Sec. 29. There is hereby established a civil rights commission ... Appeals from final orders of the commission, including cease and desist orders and refusals to issue complaints, shall be tried de novo before the circuit court having jurisdiction provided by law.^[10]

Missouri

See also: Missouri Constitution and Missouri Administrative Procedure Act

Section 536.140 of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act:

The scope of judicial review in all contested cases, whether or not subject to judicial review pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140, and in all cases in which judicial review of decisions of administrative officers or bodies, whether state or local, is now or may hereafter be provided by law, shall in all cases be at least as broad as the scope of judicial review provided for in this subsection; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall in any way change or affect the provisions of sections 311.690* and 311.700*.

3. Whenever the action of the agency being reviewed does not involve the exercise by the agency of administrative discretion in the light of the facts, but involves only the application by the agency of the law to the facts, the court may upon application of any party conduct a de novo review of the agency decision.^[11]

North Carolina

See also: North Carolina Constitution and North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act

Section 150B-51 of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act:

(b) The court reviewing a final decision may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. It may also reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency or administrative law judge;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150B-29(a), 150B-30, or 150B-31 in view of the entire record as submitted; or

(6) Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

(c) In reviewing a final decision in a contested case, the court shall determine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the petition based upon its review of the final decision and the official record. With regard to asserted errors pursuant to subdivisions (1) through (4) of subsection (b) of this section, the court shall conduct its review of the final decision using the de novo standard of review. With regard to asserted errors pursuant to subdivisions (5) and (6) of subsection (b) of this section, the court shall conduct its review of the final decision using the whole record standard of review.^[12]

New Mexico

See also: New Mexico Constitution and New Mexico Administrative Procedure Act

Article XVI, Section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution:


	In any appeal to the district court from the decision, act or refusal to act of any state executive officer or body in matters relating to water rights, the proceeding upon appeal shall be de novo as cases originally docketed in the district court unless otherwise provided by law.^[13]

Oklahoma

See also: Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma Administrative Procedure Act

Article 7A, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution:


	(c) The review in the Appellate Division shall be an equity appeal, as to both law and fact. The Appellate Division may affirm, modify or reverse the judgment of the Trial Division, or enter a new judgment, as justice may require.^[14]

Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution:

The Supreme Court's review of appealable orders of the Corporation Commission shall be judicial only, and in all appeals involving an asserted violation of any right of the parties under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Court shall exercise its own independent judgment as to both the law and the facts. In all other appeals from orders of the Corporation Commission the review by the Supreme Court shall not extend further than to determine whether the Commission has regularly pursued its authority, and whether the findings and conclusions of the Commission are sustained by the law and substantial evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or reversing the order of the Commission appealed from.^[14]

Utah

See also: Utah Constitution and Utah Administrative Procedure Act

Section 63G-4-402 of the Utah Administrative Procedure Act:

(1)(a) The district courts have jurisdiction to review by trial de novo all final agency actions resulting from informal adjudicative proceedings, except that the juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all state agency actions relating to:

(i) the removal or placement of children in state custody;

(ii) the support of children under Subsection (1)(a)(i) as determined administratively under Section 78A-6-1106; and

(iii) substantiated findings of abuse or neglect made by the Division of Child and Family Services, after an evidentiary hearing...

(3)(a) The court, without a jury, shall determine all questions of fact and law and any constitutional issue presented in the pleadings.^[15]

Section 63G-4-403 of the Utah Administrative Procedure Act:

(4) The appellate court shall grant relief only if, on the basis of the agency's record, it determines that a person seeking judicial review has been substantially prejudiced by any of the following:

(a) the agency action, or the statute or rule on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied;

(b) the agency has acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by any statute;

(c) the agency has not decided all of the issues requiring resolution;

(d) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;

(e) the agency has engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow prescribed procedure;

(f) the persons taking the agency action were illegally constituted as a decision-making body or were subject to disqualification;

(g) the agency action is based upon a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court;

(h) the agency action is:

(i) an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute;

(ii) contrary to a rule of the agency;

(iii) contrary to the agency's prior practice, unless the agency justifies the inconsistency by giving facts and reasons that demonstrate a fair and rational basis for the inconsistency; or

(iv) otherwise arbitrary or capricious.^[16]

Virginia

See also: Virginia Constitution and Virginia Administrative Procedure Act

Section 2.2-4027 of the Virginia Administrative Procedure Act:

When the decision on review is to be made on the agency record, the duty of the court with respect to issues of fact shall be to determine whether there was substantial evidence in the agency record to support the agency decision. The duty of the court with respect to the issues of law shall be to review the agency decision de novo. The court shall enter judgment in accordance with § 2.2-4029.

Where there is no agency record so required and made, any necessary facts in controversy shall be determined by the court upon the basis of the agency file, minutes, and records of its proceedings under § 2.2-4007.01 or 2.2-4019 as augmented, if need be, by the agency pursuant to order of the court or supplemented by any allowable and necessary proofs adduced in court except that the function of the court shall be to determine only whether the result reached by the agency could reasonably be said, on all such proofs, to be within the scope of the legal authority of the agency.

Whether the fact issues are reviewed on the agency record or one made in the review action, the court shall take due account of the presumption of official regularity, the experience and specialized competence of the agency, and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted.^[17]

Text of state APAs or constitutions that mentioned the scope of judicial review but did not require de novo review of agency actions

This section contains text from state constitutions or APAs discussing the scope of judicial review of agency actions, but not requiring de novo review.

Some sections might display whole articles from a state constitution or APA while others only show relevant segments.

Arkansas

See also: Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act

Section 25-15-212 of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act:

(g) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, testimony may be taken before the court. The court shall, upon request, hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(h) The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. It may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the agency's statutory authority;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error or law;

(5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or

(6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.^[18]

Connecticut

See also: Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut Administrative Procedure Act

Section 4-183 of the Connecticut Administrative Procedure Act:

(i) The appeal shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. If alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency are not shown in the record or if facts necessary to establish aggrievement are not shown in the record, proof limited thereto may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(j) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. If the court finds such prejudice, it shall sustain the appeal and, if appropriate, may render a judgment under subsection (k) of this section or remand the case for further proceedings. For purposes of this section, a remand is a final judgment.^[19]

Delaware

See also: Delaware Constitution and Delaware Administrative Procedure Act

Section 10142 of the Delaware Administrative Procedure Act:

(a) Any party against whom a case decision has been decided may appeal such decision to the Court.

(b) The appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the day the notice of the decision was mailed.

(c) The appeal shall be on the record without a trial de novo. If the Court determines that the record is insufficient for its review, it shall remand the case to the agency for further proceedings on the record.

(d) The Court, when factual determinations are at issue, shall take due account of the experience and specialized competence of the agency and of the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted. The Court’s review, in the absence of actual fraud, shall be limited to a determination of whether the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record before the agency.^[20]

Florida

See also: Florida Constitution and Florida Administrative Procedure Act

Section 120.68 of the Florida Administrative Procedure Act:

(7) The court shall remand a case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court’s decision or set aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds that:

(a) There has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts;

(b) The agency’s action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record of a hearing conducted pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57; however, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact;

(c) The fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure;

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action; or

(e) The agency’s exercise of discretion was:

1. Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law;

2. Inconsistent with agency rule;

3. Inconsistent with officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained by the agency; or

4. Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision; but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion.

(8) Unless the court finds a ground for setting aside, modifying, remanding, or ordering agency action or ancillary relief under a specified provision of this section, it shall affirm the agency’s action.

(9) A petition challenging an agency rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority shall not be instituted pursuant to this section, except to review an order entered pursuant to a proceeding under s. 120.56 or s. 120.57(1)(e)1. or (2)(b) or an agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness prerequisite to the adoption of an emergency rule pursuant to s. 120.54(4), unless the sole issue presented by the petition is the constitutionality of a rule and there are no disputed issues of fact.

(10) If an administrative law judge’s final order depends on any fact found by the administrative law judge, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. The court shall, however, set aside the final order of the administrative law judge or remand the case to the administrative law judge, if it finds that the final order depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding.^[21]

Hawaii

See also: Hawaii Constitution and Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act

Section 91-14 of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act:

(f) The review shall be conducted by the appropriate court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in the cases where a trial de novo, including trial by jury, is provided by law and also in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, testimony thereon may be taken in court. The court, upon request by any party, shall receive written briefs and, at the court's discretion, may hear oral arguments.

(g) Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

(h) Upon a trial de novo, including a trial by jury as provided by law, the court shall transmit to the agency its decision and order with instructions to comply with the order.^[22]

Idaho

See also: Idaho Constitution and Idaho Administrative Procedure Act

Section 67-5279 of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act:

(1) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

(2) When the agency was not required by the provisions of this chapter or by other provisions of law to base its action exclusively on a record, the court shall affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the action was:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or

(d) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

If the agency action is not affirmed, it shall be set aside, in whole or in part, and remanded for further proceedings as necessary. (3) When the agency was required by the provisions of this chapter or by other provisions of law to issue an order, the court shall affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the agency’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; or

(e) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

If the agency action is not affirmed, it shall be set aside, in whole or in part, and remanded for further proceedings as necessary.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, agency action shall be affirmed unless substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.^[23]

Article V, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution:


	On appeal from orders of the industrial accident board the court shall be limited to a review of questions of law.^[24]

Indiana

See also: Indiana Constitution and Indiana Administrative Procedure Act

Section 4-21.5-5-11 of the Indiana Administrative Procedure Act:


	Sec. 11. Judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to the agency record for the agency action supplemented by additional evidence taken under section 12 of this chapter. The court may not try the cause de novo or substitute its judgment for that of the agency.^[25]

Iowa

See also: Iowa Constitution and Iowa Administrative Procedure Act

Section 17A.19 of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act:

7. In proceedings for judicial review of agency action a court may hear and consider such evidence as it deems appropriate. In proceedings for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, however, a court shall not itself hear any further evidence with respect to those issues of fact whose determination was entrusted by the Constitution or a statute to the agency in that contested case proceeding. Before the date set for hearing a petition for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, application may be made to the court for leave to present evidence in addition to that found in the record of the case. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the contested case proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court. The agency may modify its findings and decision in the case by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court and mail copies of the new findings or decisions to all parties.^[26]

Kentucky

See also: Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Administrative Procedure Act

Section 13B.150 of the Kentucky Administrative Procedure Act:

(1) Review of a final order shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, unless there is fraud or misconduct involving a party engaged in administration of this chapter. The court, upon request, may hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(2) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.^[27]

Louisiana

See also: Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act

Section 964 of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act:

F. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

G. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.^[28]

Maine

See also: Maine Constitution and Maine Administrative Procedure Act

Subchapter 7, Section 11006 of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act:

Judicial review shall be confined to the record upon which the agency decision was based, except as otherwise provided by this section. ...

D. In cases where an adjudicatory proceeding prior to final agency action was not required, and where effective judicial review is precluded by the absence of a reviewable administrative record, the court may either remand for such proceedings as are needed to prepare such a record or conduct a hearing de novo.^[29]

Subchapter 7, Section 11007 of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act:

2. Review by court. Except where otherwise provided by statute or constitutional right, review shall be conducted by the court without a jury.

3. Judgment. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.

4. Decision. The court may:

A. Affirm the decision of the agency; [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

B. Remand the case for further proceedings, findings of fact or conclusions of law or direct the agency to hold such proceedings or take such action as the court deems necessary; or [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]

C. Reverse or modify the decision if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by bias or error of law;

(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.^[30]

Maryland

See also: Maryland Constitution and Maryland Administrative Procedure Act

Section 10-222 of the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act:

(f) Additional evidence before agency

(1) Judicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be confined to the record for judicial review supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to this section.^[31]

Massachusetts

See also: Massachusetts Constitution and Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act

Section 14 of the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act:

Except so far as any provision of law expressly precludes judicial review, any person or appointing authority aggrieved by a final decision of any agency in an adjudicatory proceeding, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, shall be entitled to a judicial review thereof, as follows:—

Where a statutory form of judicial review or appeal is provided such statutory form shall govern in all respects, except as to standards for review. The standards for review shall be those set forth in paragraph (7) of this section, except so far as statutes provide for review by trial de novo. Insofar as the statutory form of judicial review or appeal is silent as to procedures provided in this section, the provisions of this section shall govern such procedures. ...

(7) The court may affirm the decision of the agency, or remand the matter for further proceedings before the agency; or the court may set aside or modify the decision, or compel any action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, if it determines that the substantial rights of any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is—

(a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or

(b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or

(c) Based upon an error of law; or

(d) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(e) Unsupported by substantial evidence; or

(f) Unwarranted by facts found by the court on the record as submitted or as amplified under paragraph (6) of this section, in those instances where the court is constitutionally required to make independent findings of fact; or

(g) Arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

The court shall make the foregoing determinations upon consideration of the entire record, or such portions of the record as may be cited by the parties. The court shall give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.

If the court finds that the action of the appointing authority in discharging, removing, suspending, laying off, lowering in rank or compensation or abolishing his position, or the action of the commission confirming the action taken by the appointing authority, was not justified, the employee shall be reinstated in his office or position without loss of compensation and the court shall assess reasonable costs against the employer.^[32]

Michigan

See also: Michigan Constitution and Michigan Administrative Procedure Act

Section 24.304 of the Michigan Administrative Procedure Act:


	(3) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In a case of alleged irregularity in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereof may be taken by the court. The court, on request, shall hear oral arguments and receive written briefs.^[33]

Minnesota

See also: Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act

Section 14.63 of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act:

Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision under the provisions of sections 14.63 to 14.68, but nothing in sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A petition for a writ of certiorari by an aggrieved person for judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68 must be filed with the court of appeals and served on all parties to the contested case not more than 30 days after the party receives the final decision and order of the agency. Sections 572B.01 to 572B.31 govern judicial review of arbitration awards entered under section 14.57.^[34]

Missouri

See also: Missouri Constitution and Missouri Administrative Procedure Act

Article V, Section 18 of the Missouri Constitution:

All final decisions, findings, rules and orders on any administrative officer or body existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law; and such review shall include the determination whether the same are authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required by law, whether the same are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Unless otherwise provided by law, administrative decisions, findings, rules and orders subject to review under this section or which are otherwise subject to direct judicial review, shall be reviewed in such manner and by such court as the supreme court by rule shall direct and the court so designated shall, in addition to its other jurisdiction, have jurisdiction to hear and determine any such review proceeding.^[35]

Montana

See also: Montana Constitution and Montana Administrative Procedure Act

Section 2-4-704 of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act:

(1) The review must be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, proof of the irregularities may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because:

(a) the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(ii) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(iii) made upon unlawful procedure;

(iv) affected by other error of law;

(v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record;

(vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(b) findings of fact, upon issues essential to the decision, were not made although requested.^[36]

Nevada

See also: Nevada Constitution and Nevada Administrative Procedure Act

Section NRS 233B.135 of the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act:

1. Judicial review of a final decision of an agency must be:

(a) Conducted by the court without a jury; and

(b) Confined to the record.

In cases concerning alleged irregularities in procedure before an agency that are not shown in the record, the court may receive evidence concerning the irregularities.

2. The final decision of the agency shall be deemed reasonable and lawful until reversed or set aside in whole or in part by the court. The burden of proof is on the party attacking or resisting the decision to show that the final decision is invalid pursuant to subsection 3.

3. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of evidence on a question of fact. The court may remand or affirm the final decision or set it aside in whole or in part if substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the final decision of the agency is:

(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) Affected by other error of law;

(e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

4. As used in this section, “substantial evidence” means evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.^[37]

New York

See also: New York Constitution and New York Administrative Procedure Act

Article VI, Section 3 of the New York Constitution:

a. The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be limited to the review of questions of law except where the judgment is of death, or where the appellate division, on reversing or modifying a final or interlocutory judgment in an action or a final or interlocutory order in a special proceeding, finds new facts and a final judgment or a final order pursuant thereto is entered; but the right to appeal shall not depend upon the amount involved.^[38]

North Dakota

See also: North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Administrative Procedure Act

Section 28-32-46 of the North Dakota Administrative Procedure Act:

A judge of the district court must review an appeal from the determination of an administrative agency based only on the record filed with the court. After a hearing, the filing of briefs, or other disposition of the matter as the judge may reasonably require, the court must affirm the order of the agency unless it finds that any of the following are present:

1. The order is not in accordance with the law.

2. The order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant.

3. The provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency.

4. The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.

5. The findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

6. The conclusions of law and order of the agency are not supported by its findings of fact.

7. The findings of fact made by the agency do not sufficiently address the evidence presented to the agency by the appellant.

8. The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency's rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge.

If the order of the agency is not affirmed by the court, it must be modified or reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the agency for disposition in accordance with the order of the court.^[39]

Ohio

See also: Ohio Constitution and Ohio Administrative Procedure Act

Section 119.12(K) of the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act:

(K) Unless otherwise provided by law, in the hearing of the appeal, the court is confined to the record as certified to it by the agency. Unless otherwise provided by law, the court may grant a request for the admission of additional evidence when satisfied that the additional evidence is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the hearing before the agency.^[40]

Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution:


	(B) The courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters and such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law.^[41]

Oklahoma

See also: Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma Administrative Procedure Act

Section 75-322 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedure Act:

(1) In any proceeding for the review of an agency order, proceeding for the review of an agency order, the Supreme Court or the district court, as the case may be, in the exercise of proper judicial discretion or authority, may set aside or modify the order, or reverse it and remand it to the agency for further proceedings, if it determines that the substantial rights of the appellant or petitioner for review have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions, are:

(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or

(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or

(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or

(d) affected by other error of law; or

(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence, as defined in Section 10 of this act, including matters properly noticed by the agency upon examination and consideration of the entire record as submitted; but without otherwise substituting its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the agency on question of fact; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious; or

(g) because findings of fact, upon issues essential to the decision were not made although requested.

(2) The reviewing court, also in the exercise of proper judicial discretion or authority, may remand the case to the agency for the taking and consideration of further evidence, if it is deemed essential to a proper disposition of the issue.

(3) The reviewing court shall affirm the order and decision of the agency, if it is found to be valid and the proceedings are free from prejudicial error to the appellant.^[42]

Oregon

See also: Oregon Constitution and Oregon Administrative Procedure Act

Section 183.482 of the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act:

(7) Review of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion. In the case of disputed allegations of irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Appeals may refer the allegations to a master appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings of fact upon them. The court shall remand the order for further agency action if the court finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure, including a failure by the presiding officer to comply with the requirements of ORS 183.417 (8).^[43]

Pennsylvania

See also: Pennsylvania Constitution and Pennsylvania Administrative Procedure Act

Section 704 of the Pennsylvania Administrative Procedure Act:

The court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by the Commonwealth agency. After hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter A of Chapter 5 (relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies) have been violated in the proceedings before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. If the adjudication is not affirmed, the court may enter any order authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 706 (relating to disposition of appeals).^[44]

Rhode Island

See also: Rhode Island Constitution and Rhode Island Administrative Procedure Act

Section 42-35-15 of the Rhode Island Administrative Procedure Act:

(f) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(g) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.^[45]

Article X, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Administrative Procedure Act:

The supreme court shall have final revisory and appellate jurisdiction upon all questions of law and equity. It shall have power to issue prerogative writs, and shall also have such other jurisdiction as may, from time to time, be prescribed by law. A majority of its judges shall always be necessary to constitute a quorum. The inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction as may, from time to time, be prescribed by law.^[46]

South Carolina

See also: South Carolina Constitution and South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act

Section 1-23-380 of the South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act:

(4) The review must be conducted by the court and must be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, and established by proof satisfactory to the court, the case may be remanded to the agency for action as the court considers appropriate.

(5) The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.^[47]

Section 1-23-610 of the South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act:


	(B) The review of the administrative law judge's order must be confined to the record. The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court of appeals may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings;^[47]

Article V, Section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution:

The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs or orders of injunction, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and other original and remedial writs. The Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases of equity, and in such appeals they shall review the findings of fact as well as the law, except in cases where the facts are settled by a jury and the verdict not set aside. The Supreme Court shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law under such regulations as the General Assembly may prescribe.^[48]

South Dakota

See also: South Dakota Constitution and South Dakota Administrative Procedure Act

Section 1-26-35 of the South Dakota Administrative Procedure Act:


	The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. A trial de novo may not be granted unless otherwise authorized by law, but in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, may hear oral argument.^[49]

Section 1-26-36 of the South Dakota Administrative Procedure Act:


	The court shall give great weight to the findings made and inferences drawn by an agency on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.^[50]

Section 1-26-37 of the South Dakota Administrative Procedure Act:

An aggrieved party or the agency may obtain a review of any final judgment of the circuit court under this chapter by appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal shall be taken as in other civil cases. The Supreme Court shall give the same deference to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final judgment of the circuit court as it does to other appeals from the circuit court. Such appeal may not be considered de novo.^[51]

Tennessee

See also: Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Administrative Procedure Act

Section 4-5-322 of the Tennessee Administrative Procedure Act:


	(g) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court.^[52]

Texas

See also: Texas Constitution and Texas Administrative Procedure Act

Section 2001.172 of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act:


	The scope of judicial review of a state agency decision in a contested case is as provided by the law under which review is sought.^[53]

Section 2001.173 of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act:

(a) If the manner of review authorized by law for the decision in a contested case that is the subject of complaint is by trial de novo, the reviewing court shall try each issue of fact and law in the manner that applies to other civil suits in this state as though there had not been an intervening agency action or decision but may not admit in evidence the fact of prior state agency action or the nature of that action except to the limited extent necessary to show compliance with statutory provisions that vest jurisdiction in the court.^[53]

Section 2001.174 of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act:

If the law authorizes review of a decision in a contested case under the substantial evidence rule or if the law does not define the scope of judicial review, a court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed to agency discretion but:

(1) may affirm the agency decision in whole or in part; and

(2) shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(A) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;

(B) in excess of the agency's statutory authority;

(C) made through unlawful procedure;

(D) affected by other error of law;

(E) not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or

(F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.^[53]

Vermont

See also: Vermont Constitution and Vermont Administrative Procedure Act

Section 815(b) of the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act:

(b) If, before the date set for court hearing, application is made to the Court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the Court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the Court. The agency may modify its findings and decisions by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.^[54]

Washington

See also: Washington Constitution and Washington Administrative Procedure Act

Section 34.05.558 of the Washington Administrative Procedure Act:


	Judicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined by this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to this chapter.^[55]

West Virginia

See also: West Virginia Constitution and West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act

Section 29A-5-4 of the West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act:

(f) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be upon the record made before the agency, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, testimony thereon may be taken before the court. The court may hear oral arguments and require written briefs.

(g) The court may affirm the order or decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.^[56]

Wisconsin

See also: Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin Administrative Procedure Act

Section 227.57 of the Wisconsin Administrative Procedure Act:

(1) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, testimony thereon may be taken in the court and, if leave is granted to take such testimony, depositions and written interrogatories may be taken prior to the date set for hearing as provided in ch. 804 if proper cause is shown therefor.

(2) Unless the court finds a ground for setting aside, modifying, remanding or ordering agency action or ancillary relief under a specified provision of this section, it shall affirm the agency's action.

(3) The court shall separately treat disputed issues of agency procedure, interpretations of law, determinations of fact or policy within the agency's exercise of delegated discretion.

(4) The court shall remand the case to the agency for further action if it finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action has been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure.

(5) The court shall set aside or modify the agency action if it finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action, or it shall remand the case to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation of the provision of law.

(6) If the agency's action depends on any fact found by the agency in a contested case proceeding, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. The court shall, however, set aside agency action or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

(7) If the agency's action depends on facts determined without a hearing, the court shall set aside, modify or order agency action if the facts compel a particular action as a matter of law, or it may remand the case to the agency for further examination and action within the agency's responsibility.

(8) The court shall reverse or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's exercise of discretion is outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law; is inconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained to the satisfaction of the court by the agency; or is otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision; but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion.

(9) The court's decision shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition. If the court sets aside agency action or remands the case to the agency for further proceedings, it may make such interlocutory order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of any party and the public pending further proceedings or agency action.

(10) Subject to sub. (11), upon such review due weight shall be accorded the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved, as well as discretionary authority conferred upon it.

(11) Upon review of an agency action or decision, the court shall accord no deference to the agency's interpretation of law.

(12) The right of the appellant to challenge the constitutionality of any act or of its application to the appellant shall not be foreclosed or impaired by the fact that the appellant has applied for or holds a license, permit, or privilege under such act.^[57]

Footnotes

[1] JUSTIA, "2019 Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41 - State Government § 41-1038 Rules; restrictions; affirmative defense; exceptions; definition," accessed April 24, 2020

[2] Colorado Secretary of State, "C.R.S. Title 24 Government - State, Article 4 Rule-making and licensing procedures by state agencies," accessed April 24, 2020

[3] FindLaw, "Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 84. State Officers § 84-917. Contested case; appeal; right to cross-appeal; procedure," accessed April 24, 2020

[4] FindLaw, "Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 84. State Officers § 84-918. District court decision; appeal," accessed April 24, 2020

[5] JUSTIA, "2019 Wyoming Statutes, Title 16 - City, County, State and Local Powers, Chapter 3 - Administrative Procedure, Section 16-3-114 - Judicial Review of Agency Actions; District Courts.," accessed April 24, 2020

[6] JUSTIA, "2019 Code of Alabama, Title 41 - State Government., Chapter 22 - Administrative Procedure., Section 41-22-20 - Judicial review of preliminary, procedural, etc., actions or rulings and final decisions in contested cases.," accessed April 24, 2020

[7] Florida Legislature, "Constitution of the State of Florida," accessed April 24, 2020

[8] JUSTIA, "2018 Georgia Code, Title 50 - State Government, Chapter 13 - Administrative Procedure, Article 1 - General Provisions § 50-13-13. Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases," accessed April 24, 2020

[9] JUSTIA, "2018 Georgia Code, Title 50 - State Government, Chapter 13 - Administrative Procedure, Article 1 - General Provisions § 50-13-19. Judicial review of contested cases," accessed April 24, 2020

[10] Michigan Legislature, "Michigan Constitution," accessed April 24, 2020

[11] JUSTIA, "2019 Missouri Revised Statutes, Title XXXVI - Statutory Actions and Torts, Chapter 536 - Administrative Procedure and Review, Section 536.140 Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals.," accessed April 24, 2020

[12] JUSTIA, "2019 North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 150B - Administrative Procedure Act, Article 4 - Judicial Review. § 150B-51 - Scope and standard of review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[13] New Mexico Secretary of State, "New Mexico State Constitution," accessed April 24, 2020

[okla-14] 14.0 ^14.1 Oklahoma Libraries, "Oklahoma State Constitution," accessed April 24, 2020

[15] JUSTIA, "2018 Utah Code, Title 63G - General Government, Chapter 4 - Administrative Procedures Act, Part 4 - Judicial Review, Section 402 - Judicial review -- Informal adjudicative proceedings.," accessed April 24, 2020

[utcon-16] JUSTIA, "2018 Utah Code, Title 63G - General Government, Chapter 4 - Administrative Procedures Act, Part 4 - Judicial Review, Section 403 - Judicial review -- Formal adjudicative proceedings.," accessed April 24, 2020

[17] JUSTIA, "2019 Code of Virginia, Title 2.2 - Administration of Government, Chapter 40 - Administrative Process Act, § 2.2-4027. Issues on review," accessed April 24, 2020

[18] JUSTIA, "2018 Arkansas Code, Title 25 - State Government, Chapter 15 - Administrative Procedures, Subchapter 2 - Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-212. Administrative adjudication -- Judicial review," accessed April 24, 2020

[ct-19] JUSTIA, "2019 Connecticut General Statutes, Title 4 - Management of State Agencies, Chapter 54 - Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Section 4-183 - Appeal to Superior Court.," accessed April 24, 2020

[del-20] State of Delaware, "TITLE 29, State Government, General Regulations for State Agencies, CHAPTER 101. Administrative Procedures, Subchapter V. Judicial Review," accessed April 24, 2020

[21] JUSTIA, "2019 Florida Statutes, Title X - Public Officers, Employees, and Records, Chapter 120 - Administrative Procedure Act, 120.68 - Judicial Review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[22] JUSTIA, "2019 Hawaii Revised Statutes, TITLE 8. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS, 91. Administrative Procedure, 91-14 Judicial review of contested cases.," accessed April 24, 2020

[23] Idaho Legislature, "TITLE 67, STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS, CHAPTER 52, IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 67-5279. SCOPE OF REVIEW — TYPE OF RELIEF.," accessed April 24, 2020

[24] Idaho Legislature, "Idaho Constitution, Article V. Judicial Department., Section 9.," accessed April 24, 2020

[25] Indiana General Assembly, "Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures," accessed April 24, 2020

[26] JUSTIA, "2019 Iowa Code, Title I - STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND MANAGEMENT, Chapter 17A - IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, Section 17A.19 - Judicial review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[27] JUSTIA, "2019 Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 13B - Administrative hearings, 13B.150 Conduct of judicial review.," accessed April 24, 2018

[28] JUSTIA, "2018 Louisiana Laws, Revised Statutes, TITLE 49 - State Administration, RS 49:964 - Judicial review of adjudication," accessed April 24, 2020

[29] JUSTIA, "2019 Maine Revised Statutes, TITLE 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES, Part 18: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, Chapter 375: MAINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, Subchapter 7: JUDICIAL REVIEW - FINAL AGENCY ACTION, 5 §11006. Power of court to correct or modify record," accessed April 24, 2020

[30] JUSTIA, "2019 Maine Revised Statutes, TITLE 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES, Part 18: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, Chapter 375: MAINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, Subchapter 7: JUDICIAL REVIEW - FINAL AGENCY ACTION, 5 §11007. Manner and scope of review," accessed April 24, 2020

[31] JUSTIA, "2018 Maryland Code, State Government, Title 10 - Governmental Procedures, Subtitle 2 - Administrative Procedure Act -- Contested Cases, § 10-222. Judicial review," accessed April 24, 2020

[32] JUSTIA, "2019 Massachusetts General Laws, Part I - Administration of the Government, Title III - Laws Relating to State Officers, Chapter 30a - State Administrative Procedure, Section 14 - Judicial Review," accessed April 24, 2020

[33] Michigan Legislature, "Administrative Procedures Act of 1969," accessed April 24, 2020

[34] JUSTIA, "2019 Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 14 - 15A — State Agencies, Chapter 14 — Administrative Procedure, Section 14.63 — Application.," accessed April 24, 2020

[35] Missouri Secretary of State, "Constitution of the State of Missouri," accessed April 24, 2020

[36] Montana Legislature, "Montana Code Annotated 2019, TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, Part 7. Judicial Review of Contested Cases," accessed April 24, 2020

[37] JUSTIA, "2019 Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 233B - Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, NRS 233B.135 - Judicial review: Manner of conducting; burden of proof; standard for review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[38] New York Department of State, "New York State Constitution," accessed April 24, 2020

[39] North Dakota Legislature, "Administrative Agencies Practice Act," accessed April 24, 2020

[40] JUSTIA, "2019 Ohio Revised Code, Title 1 STATE GOVERNMENT, Chapter 119 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, Section 119.12 - Appeal by party adversely affected - notice - record - hearing - judgment.," accessed April 24, 2020

[41] Ohio Legislature, "Constitution of the State of Ohio," accessed April 24, 2020

[42] JUSTIA, "2019 Oklahoma Statutes, Title 75. Statutes and Reports, §75-322. Setting aside, modifying or reversing of orders - Remand - Affirmance.," accessed April 24, 2020

[43] JUSTIA, "2019 Oregon Revised Statutes, Volume : 05 - State Government, Government Procedures, Land Use, Chapter 183 - Administrative Procedures Act; Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, Section 183.482 - Jurisdiction for review of contested cases; procedure; scope of court authority.," accessed April 24, 2020

[44] JUSTIA, "2019 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE, Chapter 7 - Judicial Review, Section 704 - Disposition of appeal," accessed April 24, 2020

[45] JUSTIA, "2019 Rhode Island General Laws, Title 42 - State Affairs and Government, Chapter 42-35 Administrative Procedures, Section 42-35-15 Judicial review of contested cases.," accessed April 24, 2020

[46] State of Rhode Island, "Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," accessed April 24, 2020

[scapa-47] 47.0 ^47.1 South Carolina State House, "Title 1 - Administration of the Government, CHAPTER 23, State Agency Rule Making and Adjudication of Contested Cases, ARTICLE 1, State Register and Code of Regulations," accessed April 24, 2020

[48] South Carolina State House, "The Constitution of the State of South Carolina 1895," accessed April 24, 2020

[49] JUSTIA, "2019 South Dakota Codified Laws, Title 1 - State Affairs and Government, Chapter 26 - Administrative Procedure and Rules § 1-26-35 Nonjury review in circuit court--Proof of irregularities--Oral argument discretionary.," accessed April 24, 2020

[50] JUSTIA, "2019 South Dakota Codified Laws, Title 1 - State Affairs and Government, Chapter 26 - Administrative Procedure and Rules § 1-26-36 Weight given to agency findings--Disposition of case--Grounds for reversal or modification--Findings and conclusions--Costs.," accessed April 24, 2020

[51] JUSTIA, "2019 South Dakota Codified Laws, Title 1 - State Affairs and Government, Chapter 26 - Administrative Procedure and Rules § 1-26-37 Appeal to Supreme Court.," accessed April 24, 2020

[52] JUSTIA, "2018 Tennessee Code, Title 4 - State Government, Chapter 5 - Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Part 3 - Contested Cases § 4-5-322. Judicial review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[texapa-53] 53.0 ^53.1 ^53.2 JUSTIA, "2017 Texas Statutes, GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 10 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT, SUBTITLE A - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE, CHAPTER 2001 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE," accessed April 24, 2020

[54] JUSTIA, "2019 Vermont Statutes, Title 3 - Executive, Chapter 25 - Administrative Procedure § 815 Judicial review of contested cases," accessed April 24, 2020

[55] JUSTIA, "2018 Revised Code of Washington, Title 34 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 34.05 Administrative Procedure Act., 34.05.558 Judicial review of facts confined to record.," accessed April 24, 2020

[56] JUSTIA, "2019 West Virginia Code Chapter 29A. State Administrative Procedures Act, Article 5. Contested Cases, §29A-5-4. Judicial Review of Contested Cases," accessed April 24, 2020

[57] JUSTIA, "2018 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations, Chapter 227. Administrative procedure and review. 227.57 Scope of review.," accessed April 24, 2020

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

Judicial deference: States that require de novo review of agency decisions (2020)

Background and methodology

Summary of findings

States that required de novo review

States that did not require de novo review

States that required de novo review in some cases

States that did not mention the scope of judicial review of agency actions

Results: States that required de novo review of agency actions

Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in most cases

Arizona

Colorado

Nebraska

Wyoming

Text of state APAs or constitutions that required de novo review of agency actions in some circumstances

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Michigan

Missouri

North Carolina

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Utah

Virginia

Text of state APAs or constitutions that mentioned the scope of judicial review but did not require de novo review of agency actions

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

See also

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION

Judicial deference: **States that require de novo review of agency decisions** (2020)