In a review of factual determinations, what will the court avoid doing?

In a review of factual determinations, the court will typically avoid making an independent determination of fact or releasing information. This is because the court's role is to assess whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence rather than to conduct its own fact-finding mission. Courts give deference to the agency's expertise in their specific domain and thus focus on evaluating the evidence that the agency has already considered. The principle of deference underscores the importance of allowing agencies to operate within their specialized knowledge and to make determinations based on the information they have obtained.

Choices that involve considering the agency's legal opinion, asking for additional evidence, or revising existing laws are outside the scope of what the court typically engages in when reviewing factual determinations. The court's role is primarily to ensure that the agency's conclusions are reasonable and grounded in the evidence presented, without stepping into the realm of gathering new facts or altering legal interpretations outright.