Opinion ID: 6345950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Text: As with other instances of judicial review of a final action of an administrative agency, this Court reviews directly the final determination made by the Department on the permit, not the intervening decisions of the Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals. Carroll County, 465 Md. at 201. However, “[t]hat does not necessarily mean that we need cast aside the work of our colleagues on the intermediate appellate court.” Sturdivant v. DHMH, 436 Md. 584, 587-88 (2014). In this context, the standard of review applied by a court to the Department’s determination, and the corresponding level of deference to the Department, varies depending on whether the court is reviewing fact findings, discretionary decisions, or legal conclusions. Fact Findings. For fact findings, a reviewing court applies the “substantial evidence” standard, under which the court defers to the facts found and inferences drawn by the agency when the record supports those findings and inferences. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 447 Md. at 120; Carroll County, 465 Md. at 201-02. Matters Committed to Agency Discretion. With respect to matters committed to agency discretion, a reviewing court applies the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review, which is “extremely deferential” to the agency. This standard is highly contextual, but generally the question is whether the agency exercised its discretion “unreasonably or without a rational basis.” Carroll County, 465 Md. at 202 (citations omitted). Under this 29 standard, a reviewing court is not to substitute its own judgment for that of the agency and should affirm decisions of “less than ideal clarity” so long as the court can reasonably discern the agency’s reasoning. Id. Legal Conclusions. With respect to an agency’s legal conclusions, a reviewing court accords the agency less deference than with respect to fact findings or discretionary decisions. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 447 Md. at 122. In particular, a court will not uphold an agency action that is based on an erroneous legal conclusion. Id. However, in construing a law that the agency has been charged to administer, the reviewing court is to give careful consideration to the agency’s interpretation. Carroll County, 465 Md. at 20206.