8.3 Agency adjudication
7 min read•august 21, 2024
Agency adjudication is a key part of how administrative agencies make decisions. It involves agencies resolving disputes and determining rights in specific cases, often through hearings or written submissions.
Agencies use both formal and processes. follows strict procedures, while informal adjudication is more flexible. The type used depends on legal requirements and the nature of the issue being decided.
Overview of agency adjudication
- Agency adjudication forms a crucial component of administrative law in the United States legal system
- Involves agencies making binding decisions on specific parties based on facts and law
- Serves as a key mechanism for implementing and enforcing regulatory policies
Types of agency adjudication
Formal vs informal adjudication
Top images from around the web for Formal vs informal adjudication
Unit 41: Report Parts – Informal and Formal – Communication Skills View original
Is this image relevant?
Court Hearing - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
Unit 41: Report Parts – Informal and Formal – Communication Skills View original
Is this image relevant?
Court Hearing - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for Formal vs informal adjudication
Unit 41: Report Parts – Informal and Formal – Communication Skills View original
Is this image relevant?
Court Hearing - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
Unit 41: Report Parts – Informal and Formal – Communication Skills View original
Is this image relevant?
Court Hearing - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
- Formal adjudication follows strict procedural requirements outlined in the
- Informal adjudication encompasses a wide range of less structured decision-making processes
- Formal adjudication typically involves trial-like hearings with cross-examination and sworn testimony
- Informal adjudication may include written submissions, conferences, or simplified hearings
Rulemaking vs adjudication
- creates generally applicable rules or policies for future application
- Adjudication resolves specific disputes or determines rights in individual cases
- Agencies often have discretion to choose between rulemaking and adjudication
- Adjudication allows for case-by-case development of policy, while rulemaking provides broader guidance
Legal authority for adjudication
Constitutional basis
- Article II vests executive power in the President, who oversees administrative agencies
- Article I allows Congress to delegate certain powers to agencies through enabling statutes
- Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires fair procedures in agency adjudications
- Separation of powers doctrine influences the scope and limits of agency adjudicatory authority
Statutory authority
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides general framework for agency adjudications
- Agency-specific statutes grant particular adjudicatory powers and establish procedural requirements
- Organic statutes define an agency's jurisdiction and substantive areas of authority
- Congress can limit or expand agency adjudicatory powers through legislation
Procedural requirements
Notice and hearing
- Agencies must provide adequate notice of pending adjudications to affected parties
- Notice typically includes information about the issues, legal authority, and proposed agency action
- Right to a hearing varies depending on whether the adjudication is formal or informal
- Formal adjudications require opportunity for oral evidence and cross-examination
- Informal adjudications may satisfy due process through written submissions or less formal conferences
Evidence in agency proceedings
- Rules of evidence in agency proceedings are generally more relaxed than in court trials
- Hearsay evidence may be admissible if deemed reliable and probative
- Administrative law judges have broad discretion in admitting and weighing evidence
- Agencies must base decisions on substantial evidence in the record
- Parties have the right to present evidence and rebut opposing evidence
Administrative law judges
Role and responsibilities
- Preside over formal adjudications and some informal proceedings
- Conduct hearings, rule on motions, and manage the development of the evidentiary record
- Issue initial or recommended decisions for agency review
- Ensure fair and impartial proceedings
- Apply agency regulations and relevant law to the facts of each case
Appointment and removal
- Appointed through competitive examination process overseen by the Office of Personnel Management
- Enjoy significant job protections to ensure independence from agency pressure
- Can only be removed for good cause after a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board
- Supreme Court case Lucia v. SEC (2018) held that ALJs are "inferior officers" under the Appointments Clause
Due process considerations
Property and liberty interests
- Due process protections apply when government action affects protected property or liberty interests
- Property interests include government benefits, licenses, and permits
- Liberty interests encompass personal freedom, reputation, and pursuit of chosen profession
- Agencies must provide appropriate procedural safeguards when these interests are at stake
- Courts determine whether an interest qualifies for due process protection on a case-by-case basis
Mathews v Eldridge balancing test
- Supreme Court established three-factor test to determine what process is due in a given situation
- Factors include
- Private interest affected by official action
- Risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards
- Government's interest, including fiscal and administrative burdens
- Balancing test allows for flexible due process requirements based on context
- Agencies must provide sufficient procedural protections to ensure fundamental fairness
Agency decision-making process
Initial decisions
- Administrative law judges or agency officials issue initial decisions after considering evidence and arguments
- Initial decisions typically include findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed disposition
- Parties may file exceptions or appeals to challenge initial decisions
- Agency heads or designated review boards have authority to adopt, modify, or reject initial decisions
Appeals within the agency
- Many agencies have internal appeal processes for reviewing initial decisions
- Appeals may involve review by higher-level officials or specialized appellate boards
- Agency appeals provide opportunity to correct errors and ensure consistency in decision-making
- typically occurs after exhaustion of internal appeal processes
Judicial review of adjudications
Standards of review
- Courts apply different standards of review depending on the type of agency action and issue involved
- Substantial evidence standard applies to factual findings in formal adjudications
- used for informal adjudications and policy determinations
- De novo review applies to questions of law, including statutory interpretation
- may apply to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer
Scope of review
- Generally limited to the administrative record developed during the agency proceeding
- Courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the agency on factual or policy matters
- Review focuses on whether the agency followed proper procedures and reached a reasonable decision
- to the agency for further proceedings if decision is not adequately supported or explained
Bias and ex parte communications
Recusal of agency officials
- Agency decision-makers must be impartial and free from conflicts of interest
- Officials should recuse themselves if they have personal or financial interests in the outcome
- Bias may be actual or appear to compromise the integrity of the proceedings
- Parties can move for disqualification of biased officials
- Agencies have procedures for handling recusal requests and designating alternative decision-makers
Restrictions on external influences
- Ex parte communications between decision-makers and interested parties are generally prohibited
- Restrictions aim to ensure transparency and fairness in agency proceedings
- Any improper ex parte contacts must be disclosed and added to the administrative record
- Violations of ex parte rules may result in sanctions or invalidation of agency decisions
- Agencies must balance need for expertise with maintaining integrity of adjudicatory process
Alternative dispute resolution
Mediation in agency proceedings
- Agencies increasingly use mediation to resolve disputes without formal adjudication
- Neutral third-party mediators facilitate negotiations between parties
- Mediation can lead to faster, less costly resolutions and preserve relationships
- Participation in mediation is typically voluntary, and parties retain right to formal adjudication
- Confidentiality of mediation discussions encourages open communication and creative solutions
Arbitration vs adjudication
- Arbitration involves neutral third-party decision-makers outside the agency structure
- Can be binding or non-binding depending on agreement of parties and statutory authority
- Arbitration often follows more streamlined procedures than formal agency adjudication
- Agencies may use arbitration for certain types of disputes, subject to legal limitations
- Administrative Dispute Resolution Act provides framework for agency use of arbitration
Enforcement of agency decisions
Compliance and sanctions
- Agency decisions typically include orders requiring specific actions or imposing penalties
- Regulated parties have legal obligation to comply with final agency orders
- Agencies may impose administrative sanctions for non-compliance (fines, license revocation)
- Some agencies have authority to issue cease and desist orders or seek injunctive relief
- Compliance monitoring and follow-up enforcement actions ensure effectiveness of agency decisions
Judicial enforcement
- Agencies may seek court orders to enforce their decisions against non-compliant parties
- Courts generally defer to agency interpretations of their own orders
- Judicial enforcement proceedings provide opportunity for limited review of underlying agency decision
- Courts can impose additional penalties for contempt if parties violate enforcement orders
Challenges to agency adjudication
Constitutional challenges
- Parties may raise constitutional issues in agency proceedings or on judicial review
- Common challenges include due process violations, separation of powers concerns, and First Amendment claims
- Agencies typically lack authority to rule on constitutionality of statutes they administer
- Constitutional challenges often involve tension between agency expertise and judicial authority
Statutory interpretation issues
- Disputes frequently arise over agency interpretations of governing statutes
- Chevron doctrine governs judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations
- Courts consider whether Congress has directly spoken to the issue or if agency's interpretation is reasonable
- Statutory challenges may involve scope of agency authority, procedural requirements, or substantive rights
Impact on regulated parties
Rights and obligations
- Agency adjudications establish specific rights, duties, and liabilities for involved parties
- Decisions may grant or deny benefits, impose penalties, or require particular actions
- Regulated entities must comply with agency orders or face potential enforcement actions
- Adjudications can clarify legal obligations and provide guidance for future conduct
- Parties have right to seek judicial review of adverse agency decisions
Precedential effect of decisions
- Some agency decisions are designated as precedential and bind the agency in future similar cases
- Non-precedential decisions may still have persuasive value within the agency
- Precedential decisions promote consistency and predictability in agency decision-making
- Agencies may change precedent through reasoned explanation and appropriate procedures
- Regulated community relies on agency precedent for compliance and business planning
Key Terms to Review (26)
Administrative law judge (ALJ): An administrative law judge (ALJ) is an official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions in disputes involving administrative agencies. They have the authority to conduct hearings, rule on the admissibility of evidence, and issue decisions or recommendations regarding cases that involve regulatory issues or disputes between individuals and government entities.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1946 that governs the processes by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It establishes a framework for agency adjudication, rulemaking, and the way agencies interact with the public, ensuring transparency and accountability in the administrative process. The APA is crucial for understanding how agencies operate, including their decision-making processes and the rights of individuals affected by those decisions.
ALJ Decision: An ALJ decision is the ruling made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) after conducting a formal hearing on disputes involving administrative agencies. These decisions play a critical role in the administrative adjudication process, where an ALJ evaluates evidence, applies relevant laws, and renders a decision that can impact regulatory compliance, benefits eligibility, and more. ALJ decisions are typically subject to review by higher authorities, highlighting their importance in ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards in administrative procedures.
Appeal rights: Appeal rights refer to the legal entitlement of a party to challenge and seek a review of a decision made by an administrative agency in a higher court or tribunal. This concept is crucial in ensuring fairness and accountability within the administrative adjudication process, allowing individuals and entities to contest decisions that may adversely affect their rights or interests.
Arbitrary and capricious standard: The arbitrary and capricious standard is a legal standard used in judicial review to evaluate the actions of administrative agencies, determining whether those actions are reasonable and based on relevant evidence. This standard serves as a check on agency power, ensuring that decisions are not made in an arbitrary manner without consideration of facts or sound reasoning, which is crucial for upholding principles of fairness and accountability in administrative processes.
Cease and Desist Order: A cease and desist order is a legal directive issued by an agency or court that requires an individual or organization to stop engaging in a particular activity, often related to unlawful or harmful practices. This order serves as a formal warning that continuing the specified behavior may lead to further legal action, including penalties or sanctions. It plays a critical role in agency adjudication by allowing regulatory bodies to enforce compliance with laws and regulations without necessarily resorting to litigation.
Chevron Deference: Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that compels courts to defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers, provided that the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. This principle recognizes the expertise of agencies in their respective fields and emphasizes the importance of their role in interpreting laws within the regulatory framework.
Delegated authority: Delegated authority refers to the transfer of power and responsibility from one entity to another, typically from a higher level of government or organization to a subordinate one. This allows agencies or officials to make decisions, enforce laws, and implement regulations on behalf of the delegating body. It is essential for the efficient functioning of government as it enables specialized agencies to operate effectively within their areas of expertise.
Due Process: Due process is a constitutional guarantee that ensures fair treatment through the judicial system, safeguarding individuals' rights and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted according to established rules and principles. This concept is integral to the legal system, providing protection against arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property and connecting closely with individual rights and procedural safeguards in various legal contexts.
Enabling Statute: An enabling statute is a legislative act that grants authority to a government agency to implement and enforce specific laws. This type of statute outlines the scope of the agency's powers, the procedures it must follow, and the objectives it is meant to achieve. It serves as the foundation for an agency's regulatory activities, effectively allowing them to carry out their mandate in accordance with the law.
Evidentiary Hearing: An evidentiary hearing is a legal proceeding in which evidence is presented and examined to determine the facts of a case, often to establish whether a particular action or penalty should be imposed. This type of hearing allows parties to present witnesses, documents, and other forms of evidence, which are evaluated by an administrative law judge or agency official to make determinations based on the facts presented.
Exhaustion of Remedies: Exhaustion of remedies is a legal principle requiring a party to pursue all available administrative options before seeking judicial review. This principle ensures that administrative agencies have the opportunity to resolve disputes through their own processes, which can promote efficiency and expertise in decision-making. It serves to prevent premature litigation, allowing agencies to address issues within their specific regulatory frameworks.
Final Agency Action: Final agency action refers to a decision made by an administrative agency that marks the conclusion of an agency's decision-making process, which can be challenged in court. This concept is significant because it determines when a party can seek judicial review of an agency's actions, ensuring that there is a clear endpoint to administrative procedures. Understanding what constitutes a final agency action is crucial for assessing an individual's ability to contest government decisions effectively.
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion: Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion is a significant legal case that addresses the standards of judicial review applicable to agency adjudications, particularly regarding the sufficiency of evidence required to support an agency's decision. This case emphasizes the importance of ensuring that administrative agencies provide adequate factual support for their findings, thus reinforcing accountability in the agency adjudication process.
Formal adjudication: Formal adjudication refers to a legal process where disputes are resolved through a structured judicial-like hearing, often presided over by an administrative law judge or an adjudicative body. This process is characterized by strict adherence to established rules of evidence and procedure, ensuring that the parties involved have the opportunity to present their case in a manner similar to court proceedings. It is essential for determining rights and obligations under administrative law and often involves a comprehensive review of evidence and witness testimony.
Informal adjudication: Informal adjudication is a process where administrative agencies make decisions or resolve disputes without following the formal procedures typically required by law. This type of adjudication often allows for a more flexible, quicker, and less costly resolution compared to formal processes, which usually involve extensive rules and regulations. Informal adjudication is significant because it reflects an agency's ability to handle cases efficiently while still providing fair outcomes.
Initial decision: An initial decision is a preliminary ruling made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) during the adjudication process of an agency. This decision serves as a recommended outcome and typically addresses the merits of the case, providing a basis for further agency review or potential appeal. It is crucial in shaping the final determination of the agency regarding disputes involving regulatory compliance or enforcement actions.
Intervenors: Intervenors are parties who seek to join an ongoing legal proceeding, typically to protect their interests that may be affected by the outcome of the case. Their involvement can bring additional perspectives and arguments into the adjudication process, influencing the final decision and ensuring broader representation of affected interests.
Licensing decision: A licensing decision is an administrative action taken by an agency to grant or deny permission to individuals or organizations to engage in specific activities regulated by law. This process often involves evaluating the qualifications, compliance, and suitability of applicants to ensure that they meet established criteria before being allowed to operate legally within a particular field or industry.
Notice and comment rulemaking: Notice and comment rulemaking is a formal process used by administrative agencies to create new regulations, where the agency must provide public notice of proposed rules and allow for public comment before finalizing the rules. This process ensures transparency and public participation in the regulatory framework, which enhances the legitimacy and accountability of agency actions.
Notice-and-comment rulemaking: Notice-and-comment rulemaking is a formal process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations, requiring them to provide notice of proposed rules and allow the public to comment before finalizing them. This process promotes transparency and public participation, ensuring that regulations are informed by a diverse range of opinions and expertise, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of agency rules and their alignment with public interest.
Pleadings: Pleadings are formal written documents filed with a court that outline the parties' claims and defenses in a legal action. They serve to inform the court and the opposing party of the issues at stake, laying the groundwork for the adjudication process. Through pleadings, parties articulate their positions and specify the relief they seek, making them essential for guiding the proceedings that follow.
Preponderance of the evidence: Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof used in civil cases, requiring that a party's claim be more likely true than not, or over 50% likelihood. This standard is less rigorous than 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' and it plays a crucial role in various legal proceedings, helping to determine outcomes in disputes by evaluating the weight of evidence presented.
Remand: Remand is the act of sending a case back to a lower court or administrative agency for further action or reconsideration. This can occur after an appellate court reviews a case and determines that additional proceedings are necessary, often to address issues that were not adequately resolved in the original decision. Understanding remand is essential in various legal contexts, including jurisdictional matters, appeals processes, agency adjudications, and judicial review.
Rulemaking: Rulemaking is the process by which federal agencies create regulations that have the force of law. This process allows agencies to fill in the details and implement laws passed by Congress, ensuring that they can address specific issues effectively. Rulemaking is an essential part of the administrative process, influencing agency adjudication, judicial review of agency actions, and the operations of major federal agencies.
Substantive review: Substantive review refers to the judicial examination of the actual content and merits of a decision made by an administrative agency. This type of review goes beyond just checking if the agency followed proper procedures; it evaluates whether the decision itself is reasonable, supported by evidence, and not arbitrary or capricious. This ensures that agencies operate within their statutory authority and adhere to principles of fairness and justice.