A more thorough explanation:

The constitutional-fact doctrine is a rule that federal courts are not required to follow an administrative agency's findings of fact when the facts involve whether the agency has exceeded constitutional limitations on its power, especially regarding personal rights. This means that the courts can review the facts independently to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.

For example, if an administrative agency makes a decision that affects an individual's right to free speech, a federal court can review the facts of the case to determine whether the agency's decision violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The court can make its own findings of fact, rather than relying on the agency's findings.

Another example is if an administrative agency makes a decision that affects an individual's right to due process, a federal court can review the facts of the case to determine whether the agency's decision violates the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The court can make its own findings of fact, rather than relying on the agency's findings.

The constitutional-fact doctrine is important because it ensures that constitutional rights are protected, even if an administrative agency has made a decision that violates those rights. It allows federal courts to independently review the facts of a case to ensure that the Constitution is being upheld.