Simms v. Arizona Racing Comm'n, No. CV-25-0079-PR (May 14, 2026) (V.C.J. Lopez) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CV250079PR.pdf?ver=iCQfpN7dbQW6RHbWJSLjtw%3d%3d

“SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REVIEW” REMAINS AS STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUPERIOR COURT REVIEWING AGENCY ACTIONS DESPITE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO A.R.S. § 12-910(F);AMENDMENTS NOW REQUIRE TRIAL COURT REVIEWING AGENCY ACTION TO MAKE INDEPENDENT FACTUAL FINDINGS THEN DETERMINE IF THOSE FACTS PROVIDE “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” IN SUPPORT OF  THE AGENCY ACTION; APPELLATE COURTS DO NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS

This case involves a 25-year dispute between Robert Simms, the Arizona Racing Commission and other horse racing entities [“Commission”].  Simms was denied a horse racing license by the Commission which the Maricopa County Superior Court affirmed. The Arizona Court of Appeals, however reversed finding in Simms favor. The Commission appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which reversed and vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the superior court with instructions.

The standard for review of agency decisions by the courts in Arizona is set forth in A.R.S. § 12-910(F) which was amended in 2021.  The Arizona Supreme Court held that the amendments did not change the “substantial evidence” standard of review but did change the court's role in fact finding. Based upon the amendments, when reviewing an agency action, the superior court makes independent factual findings no longer giving deference to agency factual findings and then determines if those independent findings provide “substantial evidence” to support the agency's actions.  On appeal from the superior court, appellate courts do not make factual findings but only analyze the lower court's application of the law to the facts it finds.