SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION

── SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION ── Court: Arizona Supreme Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA RONALD A. SIMMS, Plaintiff/Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION, Defendant/Appellee, Cross-Appellant, and JEREMY E. SIMMS, ET AL., Defendants/Appellees, Cross-Appellants. No. CV-25-0079-PR Filed May 14, 2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Timothy J. Thomason, Judge, Retired No. LC2016-000505-001 REVERSED AND REMANDED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 259 Ariz. 415 (App. 2025) VACATED COUNSEL: Nathan J. Novak, Cole Pedroza LLP, San Marino, CA; and Dominic E. Draye (argued), Matthew P. Hoxsie, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for Ronald A. Simms Michael C. Manning, Michael C Manning PLLC, Phoenix; and James M. Torre (argued), Zwillinger Wulkan PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Jeremy E. Simms, TP Racing LLLP, and Bell Racing LLC  SIMMS V. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Opinion of the Court Christopher L. Hering (argued), Cameron C. Artigue, Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Arizona Racing Commission Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General, Joshua D. Bendor, Solicitor General, Luci D. Davis, Kathryn E. Boughton, Assistant Attorneys General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorney General's Office Ilan Wurman, In Propria Persona, Minneapolis, MN, Amicus Curiae Ilan Wurman Aditya Dynar, Pacific Legal Foundation, Arlington, VA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ authored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, and JUSTICES BOLICK, BEENE, KING, CRUZ, and JUDGE KELLY * joined. VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 We consider three questions arising from the 2021 amendments to A.R.S. § 12-910(F), a provision concerning the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions: (1) whether the Legislature eliminated substantial-evidence review; (2) what standard a reviewing court applies to an administrative agency’s factual findings in a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party (“Regulated-Party Proceeding”); and (3) whether appellate courts must independently review an agency’s factual findings de novo. ¶2 We hold that the 2021 amendments did not eliminate substantial-evidence review. In a Regulated-Party Proceeding, the reviewing court—a superior court—independently determines all questions of fact without deference to the agency and then asks whether the * Justice William G. Montgomery has recused himself from this case. Pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, Judge Michael F. Kelly of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, was designated to sit in this matter. 2  SIMMS V. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Opinion of the Court agency’s action is supported by substantial evidence based on those independently determined facts. Appellate courts, however, do not repeat that independent factual inquiry; they review the superior court’s factual findings under ordinary appellate standards while independently reviewing the legal question of whether the agency’s action is supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND ¶3 This case arises from competing claims to a horse-racing license at a racetrack in Phoenix, Arizona. While this case has an extensive factual and procedural history spanning twenty-five years, see Simms v. Simms, 259 Ariz. 415, 421–24 ¶¶ 3–24 (2025), because the questions before us are purely ones of statutory constru