The focus is "on the need for adequate notice." Doane v. Dep't of Health &Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 17, 250 A.3d 1101.

"A statute is void if it is too vague or if it delegates too much authority to the administering body." Doane v. Dep't of Health and Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 16, 250 A.3d 1101.

"A Void for vagueness' claim is based on the due process protections set forth in the United States and Maine Constitutions and focuses on the need for adequate notice." Doane v. HHS, 2021 ME 28, ¶ 17, 250 A.3d 1101. "[T]hose subject to sanction by law [must] be given fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable."

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, but the court still cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Doane v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 15, 250 A.3d. 1101. Because of a state agency's professional and often technical expertise, a reviewing court must give considerable deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules, regulations, and procedures and will not set aside the agency's findings unless the rule or regulation plainly compels a contrary result or the rule interpretation is contrary to the governing statute.

See generally 22 M.R.S.A. § 802. promulgating the regulation is within the Governor's executive power, as exercised by the Department pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 42 (West 2024), whereas enacting the statutory exemptions that the regulation incorporates—a legislative function —is not. See Baxter v. Waterville Sewerage Dist., 146 Me. 211, 215, 79 A.2d 585, 588 (1951) (defining the scope of legislative power under the Maine Constitution); cf. Me. Const. art. III (distribution of powers); Doane v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 17, 250 A.3d 1101 ("[T]he separation of powers clause of the Maine Constitution ... precludes a statutory delegation to a regulator ... [that] amounts to a surrender of legislative authority to the executive branch."); Stucki v. Plavin, 291 A.2d 508, 510 (Me. 1972) ("[N]o legislative body may delegate legislative powers to administrative officers...."). Because the Governor enforces the statutory exemptions through the regulation, the Amended Complaint, read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, plausibly alleges an as-applied challenge to the tandem operation of the regulation and the statute.

[¶28] Fifth, and relatedly, an interpretation that allows transformation from an accessory structure into a non-accessory structure by an ambiguous and difficult-to-enforce activity limitation is so amorphous as to invite arbitrary approval and enforcement and thus run afoul of the restrictions on excessive delegation contained in our Constitution. See Doane v. Dep't of Health &Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 17, 250 A.3d 1101 (a purpose of Me. Const, art. Ill. § 2 is to avoid arbitrary decision making]; Stewart v. Town of Durham, 451 A.2d 308, 311 (Me. 1982] (construing an ordinance to "avoid a danger of unconstitutionality" (quotation marks omitted]].

to set conditions on health care workers to protect the health and safety of patients); Florida v. Dep't of Health &Hum. Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1287-89 (11th Cir. 2021) (same); In re City of Newark, 264 A.3d 318, 325-27 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2021) (stating that the Mayor of Newark acted within the Mayor's authority in issuing a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for city employees even though there is no express statutory authority for such a mandate); cf. Headworks Hand Crafted Ales, Inc. v. Wash. State Liquor &Cannabis Bd., 540 P.3d 863, 870-71 (Wash.Ct.App. 2024) (indicating that the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board has authority to enforce a mask mandate through its statutory authority to "prescribe the conditions, accommodations, and qualifications requisite for the obtaining of licenses to sell alcoholic beverages" and to "regulate the sale of those beverages . . . in the interests of public health, safety, and morals" (quotation marks omitted)); Doane v. Dep't of Health &Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 23, 250 A.3d 1101 ("[B]ecause the subject matter of the regulation at issue here concerns public health and safety, a wide amount of rulemaking latitude may be necessary."). Second, the EMS immunization rule does not conflict with the statutory language.

"Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion." Doane v. Dep't of Health& Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 38, 250 A.3d 1101 (quotation marks omitted). We "examine the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did."

[¶16] "When the Superior Court acts in an intermediate appellate capacity pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, we review the administrative agencys decision directly for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record." Doane v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 15, 250 A.3d 1101 (quotation marks omitted). [¶17] "[I]t is an indispensable prerequisite to effective judicial review that an agencys decision set forth the findings of basic fact as well as the conclusions of ultimate fact and conclusions of law derived therefrom."

The court can conceive of no reason why such a principle would not apply in the context of an administrative appeal where the court acts in an appellate capacity pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C. See Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2021 ME 28, ¶ 15, 250 A.3d 1101 (noting that in the context of a Rule 80C appeal, the Superior Court generally acts in an "appellate capacity"). Thus, to the extent Attorney Gordon seeks review of issues not developed in his brief, those issues are deemed waived and will not be addressed by the court.