Once it is determined that review is proper, the next question must be asked: What is the scope of review? In other words, how far will a court delve into the agency’s fact findings, conclusions of law, and analyses? There are two sides to the scope-of-review coin. On one side, review of agency actions is necessary to prevent abuses. Without judicial review, individuals would be at the mercy of administrative agencies.

On the other side is the need to defer to an agency’s experience and expertise. Judges are not engineers, doctors, or electricians. The degree to which a court defers to an agency’s decision is known as a standard of review. Some standards offer significant deference; others do not. There are many standards of review, but the three most commonly applied are de novo, substantial evidence, and arbitrary and capricious.

De novo is Latin for “anew.” Under the de novo standard, courts review agency decisions anew—that is, no deference is given to the agency’s factual findings. Under the substantial evidence standard, reviewing courts may examine the facts found and conclusions reached by an agency. For discretionary actions not “committed to agency discretion,” judicial review is available under the arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion standard.

Factual findings are treated differently than legal conclusions. Three standards of review are applied to factual issues: de novo; substantial evidence; and arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion. As a general rule, review is limited to those issues raised at the administrative level. Failure to raise an issue or assert a position at the administrative level bars the party from raising the issue on appeal. An agency must issue findings and conclusions following formal adjudications.