Email: Learning Journey: Agency Dynamics in Adjudication Day 2

Previous

Next

 

Day 2: Arguments about Adjudication   Welcome to the second installment of Ballotpedia’s Learning Journey on the dynamics of agency adjudication!  Today we present some of the major areas of debate related to agency adjudication. Let’s get started! Argument: Administrative judges lack the expertise to preside over adjudication This argument contends that administrative judges, unlike administrative law judges, lack sufficient expertise to preside over adjudication proceedings. While administrative law judges are in principle required to have specific legal credentials and experience, administrative judges are not required to have particular qualifications other than those that govern the general hiring of civil servants. Argument: Administrative judges’ expertise meets the demand for adjudicative roles This claim suggests that the rise in informal adjudication has created a demand for administrative adjudicators that exceeds the availability of administrative law judges. The expertise of administrative judges, according to this claim, is sufficient to satisfy agency needs for informal adjudicators. Argument: Agencies sidestep the rulemaking process by setting policy through adjudication According to the Administrative Conference of the United States, some agencies set policy through adjudication more often than rulemaking. Some argue that agencies should align theory and practice by setting policy through rulemaking rather than adjudication. Read On: Rulemaking Argument: Agency adjudication violates the separation of powers Current agency adjudication procedures, according to this argument, violate the Constitution's separation of powers provisions. This argument contends that agency adjudication violates the separation of powers by unlawfully transferring judicial power from the judicial branch to the executive branch and independent agencies. Read On: Separation of powers Argument: Agency adjudication does not violate the separation of powers Adjudication procedures, according to this argument, function in accordance with the separation of powers. Since Congress deemed agency adjudication acceptable in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), supporters of this argument claim that the resulting combination of functions within agencies is constitutional and does not pose a risk of bias in violation of due process. What's Next? Tomorrow, we wrap up our Learning Journey on agency dynamics and adjudication. Review: Check out the following Ballotpedia pages to dive deeper into today’s key concepts: Taxonomy of arguments about agency dynamics Rulemaking Separation of powers