Opinion ID: 852755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

Text: Judicial review is available only to those who have standing, who have exhausted administrative remedies, who have timely pursued review, and who have met any other requirements established by law. Peabody Coal Co. v. Ind. Dep't of Natural Res., 664 N.E.2d 1171, 1172 n. 2 (Ind.1996) (citing Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-2(b)). IABR sought judicial review of the ATC's order pursuant to the Administrative Order and Procedures Act (AOPA), Indiana Code article 4-21.5 (2004). AOPA explicitly enumerates five categories of persons [1] who have standing to obtain judicial review of an agency action. [2] I.C. § 4-21.5-5-3(a). With exceptions not relevant here, these ultimately require that the person be aggrieved or adversely affected or be a subject of the order or a party to the agency proceedings. IABR claims standing under section 5-3(a)(2) as a party to the agency proceedings. AOPA defines a party to administrative proceedings as (1) a person to whom the agency action is specifically directed; or (2) a person expressly designated in the record of the proceeding as a party to the proceeding. I.C. § 4-21.5-1-10. IABR was plainly not a person to whom the agency action [was] specifically directed. However, IABR contends that because it attended, remonstrated, and offered testimony at the administrative hearings on Thornton's permit, it was a party to those proceedings. We do not agree. ATC Regulations define a remonstrator as a person who appeared, personally or by counsel, as a remonstrator against the application at the local board hearing and identified himself to the local board, stating his name and address or telephone number to the board at the hearing. 905 Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n (I.A.C.) § 1-36-2(a) (2001). IABR did appear before the Local Board and identified itself and therefore was a remonstrator at Thornton's permit application proceedings. However, as a remonstrator, IABR was not a designated party to the proceeding. A remonstrator is entitled to personal notice of [the ATC] action or written notice of [the ATC] action by certified mail. Id. at § 1-36-2(a). A remonstrator is also entitled to notice of any appeal hearing. Id. at § 1-36-2(f). The Court of Appeals held that these notice requirements along with IABR's participation in Thornton's application proceedings made IABR a party to those proceedings. Ind. Ass'n of Beverage Retailers, Inc., 809 N.E.2d at 379. We conclude however, that the regulation contemplates notice to and participation by remonstrators who are not parties. The regulations plainly differentiate between remonstrators, who are not parties, and intervening remonstrators, who become parties. [3] A remonstrator must become an intervening remonstrator in order to seek administrative review of the initial agency action. A remonstrator seeking to become an intervening remonstrator, and therefore a party is subject to the aggrieved or adversely affected requirement. A remonstrator who objects to the commission's actions must file a request for an appeal hearing within fifteen (15) days. 905 I.A.C. § 1-36-2(b). The objections of any remonstrator shall also be accompanied by a petition for intervention stating facts which demonstrate that the petitioner will be aggrieved or adversely affected by the commission's action. Id. Upon receipt of a remonstrator's objection and petition for intervention the commission shall consider whether the remonstrator has proven that he or she will be personally aggrieved or adversely affected if the application for permit is granted.... [An] `intervening remonstrator' means a remonstrator that has been granted permission to intervene by the commission. Id. at § 1-36-2(d). [F]ailure of a remonstrator to file objections and a petition for intervention within the fifteen (15) day period shall constitute a waiver of any appeal hearing from the commission's action. Id. at § 1-36-2(b). Neither IABR, nor any of its individual members, sought status as an intervening remonstrator in Thornton's application proceedings. Not every remonstrator is eligible to become an intervening remonstrator. ATC correctly contends that a person must show direct injury to become a party to an administrative proceeding. In Huffman v. Office of Environmental Adjudication, 811 N.E.2d 806 (Ind.2004), we pointed out that AOPA itself identifies who may pursue an administrative proceeding. Id. at 809. We noted that under section 3-7 of AOPA a person must be aggrieved or adversely affected in order to seek administrative review. Id. at 810 (citing I.C. § 4-21.5-3-7(a)(1)(B)). [4] To seek judicial review a person must exhaust administrative remedies and therefore must have pursued administrative review. I.C. § 4-21.5-5-4. Thus, the standing requirement for judicial review is essentially congruent with the aggrieved or adversely affected requirement for administrative review. Huffman defined this as harm to a legal interest, be it a pecuniary, property or personal interest. Huffman, 811 N.E.2d at 810. Persons who do not meet the standard may remonstrate, but are not entitled to push the process to the next level by seeking administrative or judicial review. The ATC regulations reflecting this requirement contemplate an appeal hearing at the request of either the applicant (Thornton) or any remonstrator, 905 I.A.C. § 1-36-2(b), but if a remonstrator seeks to trigger an appeal hearing, the ATC must first determine whether the remonstrator should be permitted to intervene. 905 I.A.C. § 1-36-2(d). That determination, tracking the AOPA requirement for administrative review, requires a showing that the remonstrator will be aggrieved or adversely affected. Id. at §§ 1-36-2(b), (d). In this case IABR did not initiate the appeal hearing. Rather, it responded to Thornton's objections to the ATC's denial of the permit, and remained a remonstrator, but not an intervening remonstrator at the appeal hearing. IABR claims that it did not seek status as an intervenor because it did not object to the Local Board's recommendation or the ATC's initial decision. That may be the case, but if IABR desired to achieve the status of an intervenor to preserve its right to either administrative or judicial review, then it was required to show that it would be aggrieved or adversely affected by the agency action and be designated a party to the administrative proceedings. IABR did not attempt to meet these requirements. Therefore, IABR was not a party to the agency proceedings that led to the agency actions and did not have standing to seek judicial review of the agency's decision.