Office of the Commissioner, Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Appeals Commission, Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control
116 A.3d 1221
Del.2015Background
- In 2000 Delaware reorganized alcohol regulation: a single full-time ABC Commissioner decides license applications initially; a three-member Appeals Commission hears appeals and may affirm, reverse, or modify the Commissioner.
- Hak's sought a change from a taproom to a restaurant license; ABC Commissioner denied the application after Hak's declined a hearing and asked the decision be made on the record.
- Hak's appealed to the Appeals Commission, which reversed the Commissioner and granted a provisional restaurant classification conditioned on proof of at least 60% meal revenue after six months.
- The ABC Commissioner appealed the Appeals Commission's decision to the Superior Court; during arbitration Hak's (and the Appeals Commission) moved to dismiss for lack of standing, and the Superior Court dismissed the ABC Commissioner’s appeal.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Title 4 does not grant the ABC Commissioner statutory standing to appeal his agency’s second‑level review decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ABC Commissioner have standing to appeal an Appeals Commission decision to Superior Court? | The Commissioner argued Title 4 and his regulatory/public‑advocate role permit him to appeal, at least for unprotested applications. | Hak's/Appeals Comm'n argued Title 4 grants appeal rights only to a "party to the hearing," and a subordinate tribunal lacks standing to challenge its superior absent express statute. | No. The Court held the statute provides no express authority for the Commissioner to appeal and declined to create standing. |
| Is the ABC Commissioner a "party" under the statutes allowing appeals? | Commissioner: statutory terms (e.g., "party") should be read to allow his participation for unprotested matters. | Opposing: "party" refers to applicants/protestors; the Commissioner cannot be a party to his own proceedings. | Held that reading the statute shows the Commissioner is not intended to be a "party" able to appeal. |
| Can the Commissioner rely on his quasi‑regulatory or public‑advocate role to obtain standing? | Commissioner: his regulatory duties and public‑interest responsibilities make him a necessary participant and permit appeals. | Opposing: permitting him to appeal would allow an adjudicator to be a party in his own case and contradict the statutory two‑tier review. | Held that the statutory scheme assigns the Appeals Commission final agency review; the Commissioner’s role in a specific case is quasi‑judicial and does not confer standing to appeal. |
| Does precedent (e.g., Cebrick) require a different result? | Commissioner invoked precedent where the prior multi‑member Commission appealed Superior Court rulings. | Opposing: Cebrick involved a one‑tier agency and agency final decisions; not analogous to a two‑tier scheme. | Held Cebrick is distinguishable; it does not authorize a first‑level reviewer to appeal the second‑level reviewer’s final decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cebrick v. Peake, 426 A.2d 319 (Del. 1981) (previous one‑tier Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission had standing to appeal Superior Court decision)
- Brooks v. Johnson, 560 A.2d 1001 (Del. 1989) (adjudicators lack a personal interest to seek review of their rulings)
- Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122 (1995) (an agency in its governmental capacity lacks standing to challenge a superior tribunal’s decision absent statutory authorization)
- Broadmeadow Inv., LLC v. Delaware Health Res. Bd., 56 A.3d 1057 (Del. 2012) (statutory appeal rights depend on which persons are identified as parties; courts avoid readings that permit only one adversary to appeal)