How does the 'substantial evidence' standard apply to agency findings of fact?

How does the 'substantial evidence' standard apply to agency findings of fact?

• A. The agency's factual determinations are supported by enough evidence in the record, viewed as a whole; more deferential than de novo review.
• B. The agency's decision must rest on a unanimous decision of experts.
• C. The court must review the evidence de novo.
• D. The agency's policy preferences determine the outcome.

Answer: (A)

When a court reviews an agency’s findings of fact, it uses the substantial evidence standard. This approach is highly deferential: the agency’s factual determinations will be sustained if they are supported by enough evidence in the record as a whole that a reasonable person could rely on to reach the same result. The court does not reweigh every bit of evidence or substitute its own judgment for the agency’s; it looks at the entire record to see if there is credible support for the agency’s conclusion. This means even if some evidence points the other way, as long as the record as a whole provides substantial support, the finding stands. The other options aren’t correct because they demand unanimity among experts, require de novo review, or let policy preferences determine the outcome, none of which captures the deferential, record-based standard used for agency findings of fact.

When a court reviews an agency’s findings of fact, it uses the substantial evidence standard. This approach is highly deferential: the agency’s factual determinations will be sustained if they are supported by enough evidence in the record as a whole that a reasonable person could rely on to reach the same result. The court does not reweigh every bit of evidence or substitute its own judgment for the agency’s; it looks at the entire record to see if there is credible support for the agency’s conclusion. This means even if some evidence points the other way, as long as the record as a whole provides substantial support, the finding stands. The other options aren’t correct because they demand unanimity among experts, require de novo review, or let policy preferences determine the outcome, none of which captures the deferential, record-based standard used for agency findings of fact.