Introduction

The recent decision in Citizens Against Solar Pollution et al. v. Kent County, et al., decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware on March 10, 2025, establishes an important precedent in the review of quasi-judicial decisions. The case arose from the approval of a conditional-use permit by the Kent County Levy Court for FPS Cedar Creek Solar LLC to construct a solar panel farm on private property. The plaintiffs – a coalition of local citizens and related trust parties – claimed that the permit violated various statutory and zoning provisions and sought both declaratory and injunctive relief. In the course of the litigation, two lower courts (the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court) dismissed aspects of the action, primarily on the grounds that a writ of certiorari was an adequate remedy and that the declaratory judgment claim was improperly filed given the existence of an available alternative judicial review process.

This commentary examines the background of the case, summarizes the judgment's findings, assesses the legal precedents cited, and outlines the potential impact of the decision on future challenges to quasi-judicial acts.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court. Central to the case was the challenge to the conditional-use permit approved by the Kent County Levy Court. The lower courts had held that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law via a writ of certiorari, which is designed to review quasi-judicial acts, and therefore dismissed the declaratory judgment claim. Ultimately, the Court confirmed that:

• The procedural route taken by the plaintiffs, attempting to bypass the available certiorari remedy with a declaratory judgment, was impermissible.
• The grant of a writ of certiorari was proper, as the quasi-judicial action by the Levy Court fell squarely within the framework of decisions subjected to such review.
• Arguments suggesting that the permit approved by the Levy Court conflicted with existing zoning codes and land-use plans were either beyond the scope of certiorari review or insufficiently supported to establish legal error.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the factual record as established by the lower courts and found no reversible error in the decision-making process of the Levy Court.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several prior decisions to frame its reasoning:

• Citizens Against Solar Pollution v. Kent Cnty. – Multiple opinions from the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court were cited, establishing a consistent record on the procedural posture of the case and the adequacy of the writ of certiorari.
• Delta Eta Corporation v. City of Newark – This case was pivotal in affirming that a writ of certiorari is an available remedy to review quasi-judicial permit approvals. The Supreme Court relied on Delta Eta’s reasoning that permit approvals which apply existing laws to a set of facts are inherently quasi-judicial and are therefore reviewable via certiorari.
• Middlecap Assocs., LLC v. Town of Middletown – Cited as further support for the view that the certiorari process provides an adequate remedy at law, reinforcing that no additional declaratory judgment is necessary when an existing appellate review procedure adequately addresses the issues.
• HAMPSON v. STATE ex rel. Buckson – This case helped to contextualize the dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim by affirming the principle that such relief is intended only when no other remedy is available.
• GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Green and B.W. Electric, Inc. v. Gilliam-Johnson – Although these cases were noted to highlight nuances in the interplay between different remedies, the Court distinguished the facts from Citizens Against Solar Pollution to underline that both claims in this case pertained to the same underlying issue and thus could not coexist.

Legal Reasoning

The central legal reasoning of the judgment focused on the following key points:

• Jurisdictional Adequacy: Established by 10 Del. C. § 342, the Court underscored that the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction when there exists another sufficient remedy at law. Since the writ of certiorari was available to review the quasi-judicial permit approval, the declaratory judgment claim was superfluous.
• Review of Quasi-Judicial Acts: Quasi-judicial acts, such as permit approvals based on existing zoning and land-use laws, do not carry the force of legislative enactments. The Levy Court’s decision, backed by the Kent County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation and the factual findings presented at the public hearing, was correctly framed as a quasi-judicial act warranting review only on the facial merits of the record.
• Scope of Certiorari: The decision emphasized that a writ of certiorari do not extend to reweighing evidence or revisiting factual disputes. Instead, its function is strictly to ascertain whether the legal procedures and the basis for the decision were adequate. The Court found no error ‘on the face of the record’ in the Levy Court’s conditional-use permit approval.

Impact on Future Cases

This judgment has significant implications for future disputes involving quasi-judicial actions:

• Guidance on Remedies: The decision firmly establishes that when a writ of certiorari is available and sufficient, parties cannot bring a parallel declaratory judgment claim attempting to bypass this remedy.
• Standardization of Review Procedures: Future applicants challenging permit approvals or similar quasi-judicial decisions can expect courts to rely on a narrow review standard that focuses solely on the administrative record, rather than engaging in a full appellate review of factual disputes.
• Clarification on Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial Acts: The opinion clarifies that not all decisions with a ‘law-like’ effect are legislative. Quasi-judicial approvals, which merely apply existing laws to a set of facts, are categorically reviewable via the writ of certiorari.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment involves several complex legal ideas which can be simplified as follows:

• Writ of Certiorari: This is a legal instrument used to review decisions made by a lower court or administrative agency. It is not a full appeal but a check to ensure that proper legal procedures were followed.
• Declaratory Judgment: A declaration by a court on the rights of the parties involved, typically used when no other adequate remedy is available. In this case, it was dismissed because the writ of certiorari was deemed sufficient.
• Quasi-Judicial Act: An action by a governmental body that applies existing laws to the facts in a case. Such acts are not legislative (i.e., they do not create new laws) and are subject to a limited form of judicial review.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Delaware’s decision in this case is a seminal ruling that underscores the boundaries of judicial review over quasi-judicial actions. The key takeaways from the judgment are:

• The writ of certiorari is affirmed as an adequate and exclusive remedy for challenging quasi-judicial permit approvals.
• The declaratory judgment claim was rightly dismissed because it attempted to circumvent the prescribed legal review process.
• The decision provides clarity on differentiating between legislative actions and quasi-judicial determinations, ensuring that courts adhere to appropriate review standards.

This precedent is likely to influence future cases by reinforcing the doctrine that when an adequate remedy exists via a writ of certiorari, additional equitable relief is unnecessary. Consequently, practitioners challenging administrative and quasi-judicial decisions will need to be mindful of these boundaries to correctly frame their legal strategies.