|
|
Day 1: Adjudication
|
|
|
Welcome to the first of four installments of Ballotpedia’s Learning Journey on agency dynamics in the context of adjudication!
Agency dynamics is one of five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Agency dynamics is a term used to refer to the structure and function of administrative agencies.
This Learning Journey guides you through one of the main functions of agencies, the adjudication of disputes between agencies, members of the public, and other entities. Today, we review the nuts and bolts of the adjudication process. Tomorrow, we will explore arguments about agency adjudication.
Let’s get started!
What is Adjudication?
Adjudication is a quasi trial-like process that aims to resolve regulatory disputes between agencies and private parties or between two private parties. Though adjudication can resemble a trial in an Article III court, the procedures may vary and due process protections may look different from one venue to the next. The adjudication process results in the issuance of an adjudicative order, which serves to settle the dispute and, in some cases, may set agency policy (agencies have the authority to issue rules through adjudication that must be followed by regulated entities).
Both federal and state-level agencies adjudicate disputes. Agencies can initiate proceedings by filing a notice against an individual that the agency observes to be in violation of a law that the agency administers. For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) website states that the agency may initiate adjudication proceedings "by filing a Notice of Charges alleging a violation of a consumer protection statute." Likewise, an individual may initiate the adjudication process by appealing an agency decision or by applying for licensure, accreditation, or other agency permissions. An individual receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration, for example, may appeal an agency decision that impacts their retirement, disability, or supplemental security income benefits.
Read On:
Formal vs. Informal Adjudication
Adjudication may take place through formal or informal proceedings. In the federal government, for example, formal adjudication, which is governed by the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under U.S. Code § 554, functions in a manner similar to federal civil court proceedings and includes a hearing followed by the issuance of an adjudicative order. An administrative law judge (ALJ) presides over a hearing and issues an order based on the findings from the record. If the ALJ finds the individual to be at fault, the agency may issue sanctions or penalties. Informal adjudication, on the other hand, consists of agency decision-making processes that are not clearly defined by the APA and may follow different formats depending on the specific statute that requires the proceedings.
Administrative judges (AJs) generally preside over informal adjudication and a hearing may or may not be required.
|
The Decline of Formal Adjudication
Agency use of formal adjudication has declined since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in United States v. Florida East Coast Railway. The case held that formal rulemaking is only required when a governing statute calls for a hearing, in its words, "on the record." Since the court's decision, agencies have increased the use of informal rulemaking, as well as informal adjudication, which now makes up nearly 90 percent of adjudication proceedings.
|
Administrative Adjudicators
ALJs and AJs are two types of federal administrative adjudicators—government officials who preside over adjudication proceedings. Both federal and state-level agencies use ALJs and AJs to adjudicate disputes. Although these officials have the word judge in their job title, administrative adjudicators, part of the executive rather than judicial branch, are not judges as described in Article III of the Constitution.
Though not judges in the traditional sense, administrative adjudicators may prepare for and conduct hearings or proceedings, make findings, and issue decisions on behalf of the agency that employs them. Dozens of federal agencies employ administrative adjudicators to handle a variety of cases, including enforcement actions, immigration hearings, and applications or appeals for benefits, licenses, and patents. The close relationship between ALJs, AJs, and their employing agencies, and whether that relationship impacts impartiality, is a subject of scholarly debate. (To find out more about those debates, sign up for our Learning Journey on due process in agency adjudication.)
ALJs must possess a license to practice law, among other qualifications depending on the specific agency. The qualifications of AJs, however, vary widely and a law license may or may not be required.
Read On:
What's Next?
The next stage of our Learning Journey will take a closer look at debates about the constitutional dynamics of agency adjudication. Stay tuned!
Review:
Check out the following Ballotpedia pages to dive deeper into today’s key concepts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
