How is appellate review of administrative agencies' decisions usually conducted?

Appellate review of administrative agencies' decisions is typically conducted similar in scope to a trial court's appellate review. This means that the reviewing court generally assesses whether the administrative agency exercised its authority within the law, acted based on substantial evidence, and followed the relevant legal and procedural standards. The focus is on the record of the agency's proceedings rather than on new evidence or additional testimonies, which distinguishes it from trial court reviews where new evidence can sometimes be introduced.

In appellate review, courts generally analyze the legal issues raised, including questions of statutory interpretation, agency interpretation of regulations, and compliance with administrative procedures. The reviewing court assesses whether the agency made a reasonable decision based on the evidence presented in the administrative record, often giving deference to the agency's expertise in certain matters. This process emphasizes the importance of adhering to the established procedures and records created during the initial agency proceedings, aligning it with how trial courts review lower court decisions.

Understanding this context is crucial for comprehending the distinctions in how administrative law operates compared to traditional trial processes and the significance of relying on the evidence and arguments presented during the agency's decision-making phase.