Who Goes First and What Is Competent, Substantial Evidence in a Proposed Rule Challenge? A Commentar

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was changed in 1996, shifting the burden of proof in challenges to agency rules. Before the change, the party challenging a rule had to prove all issues, but now the agency has to prove the rule is not invalid. Recent court cases have provided some clarity on this issue, but there are still some unresolved issues for practitioners. The cases of Consolidated-Tomoka, Blood Banks, and Coalition all involved challenges to proposed rules by different agencies. In the end, the court ruled that the agency does not have to prove the validity of the rules unless the challenger presents evidence first. In the Consolidated-Tomoka case, the agency was not required to disprove objections unless the challenger provided evidence to support their objections. The court said that it’s not fair to make a government agency prove every possible argument against its rules, especially if the person challenging the rules doesn’t bring up those arguments. It would make the process of making rules too difficult and unfair to the agency. So, the person challenging the rules has to be clear about what their legal issues are, and the agency only has to prove those specific issues. The Consolidated-Tomoka decision didn’t answer the question of what kind of evidence agencies need to prove their case. In the Blood Banks case, the court said that agencies only need to show their rules are based on “competent, substantial evidence.” But what does that mean in a trial? Normally, this standard is used for judges to review decisions, not to gather evidence. It means the evidence needs to be relevant and material to support the conclusion. This new standard could change how agencies prove their case in administrative law challenges. In a formal hearing, when there is a dispute about facts, the party with the burden of proof has to show that their evidence is more convincing than the other party’s evidence. However, when a court reviews the agency’s decision, they have to consider whether there is enough evidence to support the agency’s decision. In two court cases, the judges had to decide if the agency had enough evidence to support their decisions. In one case, the court said that the agency did not have to prove their decision by a preponderance of the evidence, and in the other case, the court said the agency’s decision was supported by enough evidence. In simple terms, when it comes to making decisions in legal cases, there are two types of issues: ones that can be proven with regular evidence, and ones that involve opinions or policy considerations. In cases where regular evidence is involved, the agency usually has to follow the findings of the judge. But when it comes to opinions and policies, the agency has more freedom to make decisions. When it comes to challenging rules, the agency has to prove that their factual assumptions are more likely to be correct than those of the challenger. In this case, the agency has to provide strong evidence to support their position. When a challenger disagrees with a government agency’s policy decision, they should generally respect the agency’s choice unless there are major factual errors. It’s important for a lawyer to try to convince the agency to change its policy before it becomes a rule, and if that doesn’t work, they can try to show that the agency’s facts are wrong in court.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/who-goes-first-and-what-is-competent-substantial-evidence-in-a-proposed-rule-challenge-a-commentar/