Reviewing Mixed Questions of Fact and Law in Administrative Adjudications: Why Courts Should Move to “Substantially Established Facts”

Authors

Gwendolyn Savitz, University of Tulsa College of Law

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2023

Publisher

Villanova Law Review

Abstract

Courts are inconsistent in how they review mixed questions of fact and law in administrative adjudications. Many courts simply and unquestioningly review the entire mixed issue using only substantial evidence review. This grants extreme and unquestioning deference to any legal interpretation used by the agency, far more than would be available to it under the increasingly besieged Chevron doctrine, despite the fact that the adjudications being reviewed in this manner generally would not even be entitled to Chevron deference if the legal component of the mixed question were analyzed separately. Courts should therefore analyze the different components of a mixed question separately. Reviewing administrative action in this way is actually even easier than it would be when reviewing a traditional trial because the reviewing court can always remand to the agency if factual findings are not sufficient to allow review.

Recommended Citation

Gwendolyn Savitz, Reviewing Mixed Questions of Fact and Law in Administrative Adjudications: Why Courts Should Move to "Substantially Established Facts", 68 VILL. L. REV. 463 (2023).