Do administrative agency decisions need to be supported by clear and convincing evidence?

In administrative law, the standard of proof required for agency decisions generally does not necessitate that those decisions be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the prevailing standard is typically a "preponderance of the evidence" for most civil cases or administrative proceedings. This means that the evidence must show that something is more likely true than not.

In many contexts, such as regulatory or licensing decisions, the requirements can vary depending on the specific statutes or administrative rules that govern the agency's actions. However, the clear and convincing standard is more commonly associated with specific types of cases, such as those that might influence a person’s fundamental rights. Therefore, saying that administrative agency decisions need to be supported by clear and convincing evidence would be incorrect; instead, they are more often supported by evidence that meets the lower preponderance threshold.

This understanding clarifies why the statement indicating that administrative agency decisions do not need to be supported by clear and convincing evidence is appropriate. The process allows for more flexible standards aligned with the nature of administrative law, which often concerns regulatory and compliance issues rather than the stricter burdens present in criminal law.