MICHIGAN ASSN OF HOME BUILDERS V DEPT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Opinion
Chief Justice:
Justices:
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
FILED JUNE 25, 2008
MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF HOME
BUILDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 135023
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH and
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC
GROWTH,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION
AGENCY ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, and
MIDWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ALLIANCE,
Intervening Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
At issue here is whether judicial review of an administrative determination
in a non-contested case is limited to the administrative record and whether the
administrative record may be expanded by a remand to the administrative agency
for additional fact-finding. The Court of Appeals held that judicial review of an
administrative rule is limited to the administrative record, but stated that the trial
court could “remand the matter to the department for additional investigation or
explanation.” Michigan Ass’n of Home Builders v Dep’t of Labor & Economic
Growth Director, 276 Mich App 467, 479; 741 NW2d 531 (2007). In lieu of
granting leave to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part,
vacate it in part, and hold that judicial review of an administrative rule, which by
definition constitutes a non-contested case, is limited to the administrative record
and that the administrative record may not be expanded by a remand to the
administrative agency.
Administrative determinations are governed by the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq. An administrative determination is
categorized as either a contested or a non-contested case. “Contested case” is
defined as “a proceeding, including rate-making, price-fixing, and licensing, in
which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is
required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary
hearing.” MCL 24.203(3). A non-contested case would therefore encompass
administrative determinations that do not fall within the definition of a contested
case. This case concerns the review of an administrative rule. “A determination,
decision, or order in a contested case” is specifically exempted from the definition
of “rule,” MCL 24.207(f), and, therefore, the review of an administrative rule is
categorized as involving a non-contested case.
2
MCL 24.241(1) provides, in pertinent part: “[B]efore the adoption of a rule,
an agency, or the office of regulatory reform, shall give notice of a public hearing
and offer a person an opportunity to present data, views, questions, and
arguments.”1 MCL 24.264 allows a plaintiff to challenge the validity of a rule in
an action for a declaratory judgment.
There is no provision in the statute
regarding whether the trial court can expand the record for purposes of review at
the trial court level or by remanding the matter to the agency.
For contested cases, the APA sets forth an entire chapter dedicated to the
procedures for agency hearings, including the taking of witnesses’ testimony. See
MCL 24.271 through 24.287. The public hearings specified in MCL 24.241(1),
which are held before the adoption of a rule, are “not subject to the provisions
governing a contested case.” MCL 24.241(4). Once a plaintiff exhausts the
administrative remedies in a contested case, the plaintiff is entitled to direct
judicial review.
MCL 24.301.
MCL 24.305 specifically provides for the
expansion of the record in a contested case by way of a remand to the agency:
If timely application is made to the court for leave to present
additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court
that an inadequate record was made at the hearing before the agency
or that the additional evidence is material, and that there were good
reasons for failing to record or present it in the proceeding before the
agency, the court shall order the taking of additional evidence before
the agency on such conditions as the court deems proper. The
1
Executive Order No. 2005-1 abolished the Office of Regulatory Reform
and transferred its powers, duties, and responsibilities to the State Office of
Administrative Hearings and Rules. The order is codified at MCL 445.2021.
3
agency may modify its findings, decision or order because of the
additional evidence and shall file with the court the additional
evidence and any new findings, decision or order, which shall
become part of the record.
There is no similar provision for non-contested cases.
The more formal
procedures called for in contested cases are simply not part of the rulemaking
process or the process of judicial review of non-contested cases.
Other states have held that judicial review of non-contested cases is limited
to the administrative record if there is no express provision of law that allows
expansion of the record. For example, in Mississippi, “[a]ppellate review of an
agency decision is limited to the record and the agency’s findings.” Boyles v
Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd, 794 So 2d 149, 153 (Miss, 2001). The Minnesota
Court of Appeals stated: “The scope of review in a pre-enforcement challenge to a
rule is more restrictive than review of an agency’s decision in a contested
enforcement proceeding.
The court’s review is limited to the record during
rulemaking.” City of Morton v Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 437 NW2d
741, 745-746 (Minn App, 1989) (citation omitted). In Illinois, courts review an
agency’s promulgation of rules and regulations “on the basis of the rule-making
record . . . .” Union Oil Co of California v Illinois Pollution Control Bd, 43 Ill
App 3d 927, 930; 357 NE2d 715 (1976). But see Furlong Cos, Inc v Kansas City,
189 SW3d 157, 165 (Mo, 2006) (ruling that the evidentiary record may be
developed before the trial court in a non-contested case on the basis of a state
4
statute that expressly provides that judicial review in non-contested cases is not
limited to the administrative record).
The APA expressly provides for expansion of the record in contested cases.
MCL 24.305. The absence of a similar provision for non-contested cases strongly
suggests the limited scope of judicial review in these cases under the legal maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.2 Hoerstman Gen Contracting, Inc v Hahn,
474 Mich 66, 74; 711 NW2d 340 (2006). Accordingly, we hold that judicial
review of an administrative rule is limited to the administrative record and that the
administrative record may not be expanded by a remand to the administrative
agency.3
2
“[T]he expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.” Black’s Law
Dictionary (6th ed).
3
In making its determination that judicial review is limited to the
administrative record, the Court of Appeals concluded that Westervelt v Natural
Resources Comm, 402 Mich 412; 263 NW2d 564 (1978), constituted a
nonbinding, plurality opinion. In Westervelt, we considered (1) whether the
Legislature unconstitutionally delegated certain legislative powers and (2) whether
an administrative agency exceeded the scope of its authority in promulgating
administrative rules. The parties stipulated that only legal issues were contested,
so the trial court’s review would be limited to specified evidence in the
administrative record. Id. at 450-451 (opinion by Williams, J.). When the trial
court failed to consider this evidence, we remanded the case for further factual
findings and held that such findings should be entered into the record. Id. at 452453. Three justices signed the lead opinion, and three justices signed a concurring
opinion that disagreed only with the lead opinion’s analysis of the delegation-ofpowers issue. Id. at 454, 459 (opinion by Ryan, J.). Therefore, the opinion is
binding regarding the second issue, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding
otherwise. Westervelt did not hold that the trial court may consider evidence that
(continued . . .)
5
We affirm the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment determining that
judicial review is limited to the administrative record, vacate the portion of its
judgment stating that the trial court can “remand the matter to the department for
additional investigation or explanation,” and vacate the portion of its judgment
stating that Westervelt v Natural Resources Comm, 402 Mich 412; 263 NW2d 564
(1978), is not binding.
Clifford W. Taylor
Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young
Stephen J. Markman
WEAVER, J. I would grant leave to appeal in this case.
Elizabeth A. Weaver
(. . . continued)
was not considered by the administrative agency because the evidence to be
considered by the trial court was, in fact, part of the administrative record.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.