[License Challenge] Talia Was Licensed by Her State to Train

Multiple Choice

[License Challenge] Talia was licensed by her state to train massage therapists. The state-licensing agency, the Aesthetic and Massage Commission, took very seriously its role of enforcing the state statute enabling the Commission to do its work and providing that licensed massage therapists must refrain from "any act or conduct indicating bad faith, incompetence, dishonesty, or improper dealing." Rules were passed authorizing the agency to revoke the license of anyone found guilty of such acts or conduct. While driving home late one night from a party, Talia was stopped by police and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She pled guilty to the offense. When the Aesthetic and Massage Commission discovered the conviction, the officials of the agency met, decided that Talia might drink on the job, and that she might pose a danger to students. Accordingly, her license to teach massage therapy was revoked. Talia threatened to sue to retain her license and was told by the agency head that she had no right to appeal to court because, based on her admission of guilt, no factual dispute was involved. The agency official went on to say that even if an appealable issue existed, agency action may only be overturned when there is clear and convincing evidence that the agency exceeded its discretion. The administrative system in Talia's state is identical to the federal system.
-If Talia appeals to court after she is unable to resolve the issue through the agency, what would likely be the result?

A) The court would immediately dismiss her appeal because she had no right to an appeal a decision of an agency of this type.
B) She would lose unless she could establish that she was singled out for unfair treatment based on a review of others in her position who pled guilty to similar charges.
C) She would lose unless she could establish bias against her because of her race, color, gender, age, or national origin.
D) She would lose because courts will review agency interpretations of regulations only when there is clear and convincing evidence of a factual dispute, which is nonexistent because she pled guilty to the DUI charge.
E) She would win because it appears that the agency exceeded its authority under the statute in that her DUI conviction did not involve matters, such as honesty, that the statute was meant to protect.