Can Utah appellate courts consider new evidence on administrative review? JLPR v. Dep't of Agriculture and Food Explained

In JLPR v. Department of Agriculture and Food, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical procedural question: whether appellate courts can consider new evidence that was not presented during administrative proceedings.

Background and Facts

After Utah legalized medical marijuana, JLPR LLC applied for one of ten cannabis cultivation licenses through the Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF). When UDAF awarded licenses to other applicants, JLPR filed a protest under Utah’s Procurement Code. However, JLPR’s initial protest letter was only three pages and contained no supporting exhibits or evidence. Both the protest officer and the Procurement Policy Board rejected JLPR’s challenges for lack of evidence.

On appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals, JLPR attached seventeen exhibits to its briefs, including emails, affidavits, redacted applications, and a state audit report. These materials were obtained through public records requests after the administrative proceedings concluded.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the court could consider new materials not presented to the administrative agency. Secondary issues included whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious based on the administrative record.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court firmly rejected JLPR’s attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal. Utah’s procurement code creates a structured administrative review process where the protest appeal record is strictly limited to materials considered by the protest officer. The statute explicitly prohibits the board from considering “new or additional evidence not considered by the protest officer.”

The court emphasized that appellate review of administrative decisions is “limited to the evidence contained in the record on appeal.” While parties may seek to supplement the record through proper motion practice, they “may not simply attach new documents to their appellate briefs.”

Without the new materials, JLPR could not demonstrate that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court found JLPR’s original protest claims—regarding bias, scoring inconsistencies, and procedural defects—were unsupported by evidence in the administrative record.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of developing a complete evidentiary record during administrative proceedings. Practitioners must gather and present all supporting evidence at the agency level, as Utah courts will not consider materials submitted for the first time on appeal. The case also demonstrates that bare allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient to sustain an administrative protest under Utah’s procurement code.