Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Executive control of agencies: Organization of state administrative law judges (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


Disclaimer: The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.


This page contains information from a Ballotpedia survey about which state constitutions or administrative procedure acts made administrative law judges (ALJs) accountable to a chief ALJ and which ones made ALJs agency employees as of 2020.

Looking at how states organized their administrative law judges (ALJs) and other hearing officers provided insight into how executive control of agencies worked at the state level. Executive control is one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.

In some cases, the constitution and APA did not mention whether those listed officials were accountable to a chief ALJ or were agency employees. This page indicates which states did not answer the question in those documents.

According to the BP survey, more states made ALJs and hearing officers accountable to a chief ALJ or another officer than made them employees of various state agencies.

This page features the following sections:

In 2025, Ballotpedia updated the pillar system used to understand the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Click here to learn more about this updated structure and to see Ballotpedia's current content related to the administrative state.



Background

Ballotpedia conducted a survey of all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedure acts (APAs) to learn whether ALJs and other hearing officers were accountable to chief ALJs or were employees of agencies. In theory, ALJs and hearing officers who are accountable to a chief ALJ will have more independence than those who are employees of the same agency for which they resolve contested cases.

A state ALJ or hearing officer oversees agency adjudication of contested cases. These officers resolve disputes and make sure the agency and those with business before the agency follow proper procedures.

Adjudication procedures varied from state to state. This page covers the organization of any officer who presided over agency hearings. Most states called those officers ALJs or hearing officers, but the survey found and included states that called such officers hearing examiners, presiding officers, or other similar names.

State administrative procedure acts (APAs) govern procedures for state administrative agencies to propose and issue regulations, adjudicate disputes, and provide for judicial review of agency decisions. Many state APAs were modeled on the federal APA, which governs the administrative processes of federal executive branch agencies. Text of all 50 state APAs is available here.

Summary of findings

Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of March 2020):

  • 31 states, 62%, did not specify in their constitutions or APAs whether ALJs were accountable to a chief ALJ or were agency employees.
  • 10 states, 20%, had APAs that made ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ
  • 6 states, 12%, had APAs that described ALJs as employees of various state agencies
  • 4 states, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia, had APAs that made their ALJs accountable to a state officer other than a chief ALJ
  • Maryland had an APA that allowed agencies to hear their own cases or to delegate hearing authority to ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ or to a person not accountable to the chief ALJ.

Which states had APA or constitutional provisions that made ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ or made ALJs agency employees

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those with specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs that made ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ or made ALJs agency employees.

  • Done means that the state constitution or APA made ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ
  • Pending legislation means that the state constitution or APA made ALJs agency employees
  • Right-facing-Arrow-icon.jpg means that the state constitution or APA made ALJs accountable to another state officer
  • DefeatedA means that the state constitution or APA did not mention whether ALJs are accountable to a chief ALJ or are agency employees
State Constitutional provision about ALJ organization State APA provision about ALJ organization
Alabama DefeatedA DefeatedA
Alaska DefeatedA DefeatedA
Arizona DefeatedA Done
Arkansas DefeatedA DefeatedA
California DefeatedA Done
Colorado DefeatedA DefeatedA
Connecticut DefeatedA Pending legislation
Delaware DefeatedA DefeatedA
Florida DefeatedA Done
Georgia DefeatedA Done
Hawaii DefeatedA DefeatedA
Idaho DefeatedA DefeatedA
Illinois DefeatedA DefeatedA
Indiana DefeatedA DefeatedA
Iowa DefeatedA DefeatedA
Kansas DefeatedA Right-facing-Arrow-icon.jpg
Kentucky DefeatedA Pending legislation
Louisiana DefeatedA Right-facing-Arrow-icon.jpg
Maine DefeatedA Pending legislation
Maryland DefeatedA DonePending legislation*
Massachusetts DefeatedA DefeatedA
Michigan DefeatedA Pending legislation
Minnesota DefeatedA Done
Mississippi DefeatedA DefeatedA
Missouri DefeatedA DefeatedA
Montana DefeatedA DefeatedA
Nebraska DefeatedA DefeatedA
Nevada DefeatedA DefeatedA
New Hampshire DefeatedA DefeatedA
New Jersey DefeatedA Done
New Mexico DefeatedA DefeatedA
New York DefeatedA DefeatedA
North Carolina DefeatedA Done
North Dakota DefeatedA DefeatedA
Ohio DefeatedA DefeatedA
Oklahoma DefeatedA DefeatedA
Oregon DefeatedA Done
Pennsylvania DefeatedA DefeatedA
Rhode Island DefeatedA DefeatedA
South Carolina DefeatedA Done
South Dakota DefeatedA DefeatedA
Tennessee DefeatedA Right-facing-Arrow-icon.jpg
Texas DefeatedA DefeatedA
Utah DefeatedA DefeatedA
Vermont DefeatedA DefeatedA
Virginia DefeatedA Right-facing-Arrow-icon.jpg
Washington DefeatedA DefeatedA
West Virginia DefeatedA DefeatedA
Wisconsin DefeatedA Pending legislation
Wyoming DefeatedA DefeatedA
Notes: * - Maryland's APA indicates that ALJs and hearing officers may be accountable to the chief ALJ or employees of agencies.

Text of state APA provisions that made ALJs accountable to a chief ALJ

This section contains text from state APAs that place ALJs under the authority of a chief ALJ.

Some sections display whole articles from a state APA while others only show relevant segments.

Arizona

See also: Arizona Constitution and Arizona Administrative Procedure Act

Section 41-1092.01(C)(1) and (3) of the Arizona APA:

C. The director shall: ...


1. Serve as the chief administrative law judge of the office. ...

3. Subject to chapter 4, article 4 of this title, hire employees, including full-time administrative law judges, and contract for special services, including temporary administrative law judges, that are necessary to carry out this article.[1]

California

See also: California Constitution and California Administrative Procedure Act

Section 11370.2 of the California APA:

(a) There is in the Department of General Services the Office of Administrative Hearings which is under the direction and control of an executive officer who shall be known as the director.


(b) The director shall have the same qualifications as administrative law judges, and shall be appointed by the Governor subject to the confirmation of the Senate.[2]

Florida

See also: Florida Constitution and Florida Administrative Procedure Act

Section 120.65(1) and (4) of the Florida APA:

(1) The Division of Administrative Hearings within the Department of Management Services shall be headed by a director who shall be appointed by the Administration Commission and confirmed by the Senate. The director, who shall also serve as the chief administrative law judge, and any deputy chief administrative law judge must possess the same minimum qualifications as the administrative law judges employed by the division. ...


(4) The division shall employ administrative law judges to conduct hearings required by this chapter or other law.[3]

Georgia

See also: Georgia Constitution and Georgia Administrative Procedure Act

Section 50-13-40(b) and (e)(1) of the Georgia APA:

(b) The head of the office shall be the chief state administrative law judge who shall be appointed by the Governor, shall serve a term of six years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may be removed by the Governor for cause.


(e)

(1) The chief state administrative law judge shall have the power to employ full-time assistant administrative law judges who shall exercise the powers conferred upon the chief state administrative law judge in all administrative cases assigned to them. Each assistant administrative law judge shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for a period of at least three years. The chief state administrative law judge may establish different levels of administrative law judge positions and the compensation for such positions shall be determined by the chief state administrative law judge.[4]

Maryland

See also: Maryland Constitution and Maryland Administrative Procedure Act

Section 10-205(a)(1) of the Maryland APA:

(a) To whom delegated; limitation. --


(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a board, commission, or agency head authorized to conduct a contested case hearing shall:

(i) conduct the hearing; or

(ii) delegate the authority to conduct the contested case hearing to:

1. the Office; or

2. with the prior written approval of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, a person not employed by the Office.[5]

Minnesota

See also: Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act

Section 14.48 of the Minnesota APA:

Subdivision 1. Creation. A state Office of Administrative Hearings is created.


Subd. 2. Chief administrative law judge. The office shall be under the direction of a chief administrative law judge who shall be learned in the law and appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, for a term ending on June 30 of the sixth calendar year after appointment. Senate confirmation of the chief administrative law judge shall be as provided by section 15.066. The chief administrative law judge may hear cases and shall appoint additional administrative law judges and compensation judges to serve in the office as necessary to fulfill the duties of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The chief administrative law judge may delegate to a subordinate employee the exercise of a specified statutory power or duty as deemed advisable, subject to the control of the chief administrative law judge.[6]

New Jersey

See also: New Jersey Constitution and New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act

Section 52:14B-10(c) of the New Jersey APA:

(c) All hearings of a State agency required to be conducted as a contested case under this act or any other law shall be conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Law, except as provided by this amendatory and supplementary act.[7]

North Carolina

See also: North Carolina Constitution and North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act

Section 150B-32(a) of the North Carolina APA:

(a) The Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings shall assign himself or another administrative law judge to preside over a contested case.[8]

Oregon

See also: Oregon Constitution and Oregon Administrative Procedure Act

Section 183.610(2) of the Oregon APA:

(2) The chief administrative law judge shall employ administrative law judges. The chief administrative law judge shall ensure that administrative law judges employed for the office receive all training necessary to meet the standards required under the program created under ORS 183.680.[9]

South Carolina

See also: South Carolina Constitution and South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act

Section 1-23-570 of the South Carolina APA:

The Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division is responsible for the administration of the division, including budgetary matters, assignment of cases, and the administrative duties and responsibilities of the support staff. The chief judge shall assign judges of the division to hear all cases of the various state departments and commissions for which it is responsible on a general rotation and interchange basis by scheduling and assigning administrative law judges based upon subject matter no less frequently than every six months.[10]

Text of state APA provisions that made ALJs agency employees

This section contains text from state APAs that indicate that ALJs are employees of various state agencies.

Some sections display whole articles from a state APA while others only show relevant segments.

Connecticut

See also: Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut Administrative Procedure Act

Section 4-166(13) of the Connecticut APA:

(13) “Presiding officer” means the member of an agency or the hearing officer designated by the head of the agency to preside at the hearing;[11]

Kentucky

See also: Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Administrative Procedure Act

Section 13B.030 of the Kentucky APA:

(2)(a) In securing hearing officers as necessary to conduct administrative hearings under the jurisdiction of the agency, an agency may:
1. Employ hearing officers;
2. Contract with another agency for hearing officers; or
3. Contract with private attorneys through personal service contract.[12]

Maine

See also: Maine Constitution and Maine Administrative Procedure Act

Section 9062(1) of the Maine APA:

1. Presiding officer. An agency may authorize any agency member, employee or agent to act as presiding officer in any hearing.[13]

Maryland

See also: Maryland Constitution and Maryland Administrative Procedure Act

Section 10-205(a)(1) of the Maryland APA:

(a) To whom delegated; limitation. --


(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a board, commission, or agency head authorized to conduct a contested case hearing shall:

(i) conduct the hearing; or

(ii) delegate the authority to conduct the contested case hearing to:

1. the Office; or

2. with the prior written approval of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, a person not employed by the Office.[5]

Michigan

See also: Michigan Constitution and Michigan Administrative Procedure Act

Section 24.279 of the Michigan APA:

Sec. 79. An agency, 1 or more members of the agency, a person designated by statute or 1 or more hearing officers designated and authorized by the agency to handle contested cases, shall be presiding officers in contested cases.[14]

Wisconsin

See also: Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin Administrative Procedure Act

Section 227.46(1) and (5) of the Wisconsin APA:

(1) Except as provided under s. 227.43 (1), an agency may designate an official of the agency or an employee on its staff or borrowed from another agency under s. 20.901 or 230.047 as a hearing examiner to preside over any contested case.


(5) In any class 2 proceeding, if the decision to file a complaint or otherwise commence a proceeding to impose a sanction or penalty is made by one or more of the officials of the agency, the hearing examiner shall not be an official of the agency and the procedure described in sub. (2) shall be followed.[15]

Text of state APA provisions that made ALJs accountable to an officer other than a chief ALJ

This section contains text from state APAs that made ALJs accountable to state officers who are not chief ALJs.

Some sections display whole articles from a state APA while others only show relevant segments.

Kansas

See also: Kansas Constitution and Kansas Administrative Procedure Act

Section 77-561 of the Kansas APA:

Office of administrative hearings; director; employees. There is hereby established the office of administrative hearings. The office shall be administered by the director of administrative hearings. The director of administrative hearings shall be appointed by the governor pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4315a, and amendments thereto, and shall have special training and qualifications for such position. The director of administrative hearings shall employ, and fix compensation of, such assistants or clerks as the director of administrative hearings may from time to time deem necessary.[16]

Louisiana

See also: Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act

Section 49:994 of the Louisiana APA:

A. The director of the division shall employ the administrative law judges for the division ...[17]

Tennessee

See also: Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Administrative Procedure Act

Section 4-5-301 of the Tennessee APA:

... (c) The agency shall determine whether a contested case shall be conducted by an administrative judge or hearing officer sitting alone or in the presence of members of the agency; provided, that administrative judges or hearing officers employed in the office of the secretary of state shall not be required to conduct a contested case sitting alone in the absence of agreement between the agency and the secretary of state.


(d) Contested cases under this section may be conducted by administrative judges or hearing officers employed in the office of the secretary of state upon the request of the agency being presented to the secretary of state and the request being granted.

(e) Any agency not authorized by law to have a contested case conducted by an administrative judge, hearing officer or similar officer from the agency shall direct that the proceedings or any part thereof be conducted by an administrative judge or hearing officer employed in the office of the secretary of state.[18]

Virginia

See also: Virginia Constitution and Virginia Administrative Procedure Act

Section 2.2-4024(A) of the Virginia APA:

A. In all formal hearings conducted in accordance with § 2.2-4020, the hearing shall be presided over by a hearing officer selected from a list prepared by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court and maintained in the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. Parties to informal fact-finding proceedings conducted pursuant to § 2.2-4019 may agree at the outset of the proceeding to have a hearing officer preside at the proceeding, such agreement to be revoked only by mutual consent. The Executive Secretary may promulgate rules necessary for the administration of the hearing officer system and shall have the authority to establish the number of hearing officers necessary to preside over administrative hearings in the Commonwealth.[19]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41 - State Government § 41-1092.01 Office of administrative hearings; director; powers and duties; fund," accessed March 27, 2020
  2. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 California Code, Government Code - GOV TITLE 2 - GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION 3 - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, PART 1 - STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHAPTER 4 - Office of Administrative Hearings, ARTICLE 1 - General Provisions, Section 11370.2," accessed March 27, 2020
  3. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Florida Statutes, TITLE X - PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS, Chapter 120 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 120.65 - Administrative Law Judges," accessed March 27, 2020
  4. ↑ JUSTIA, "2018 Georgia Code, Title 50 - State Government, Chapter 13 - Administrative Procedure, Article 2 - Office of State Administrative Hearings § 50-13-40. Office created; chief state administrative law judge," accessed March 27, 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 JUSTIA, "2018 Maryland Code, State Government, Title 10 - Governmental Procedures, Subtitle 2 - Administrative Procedure Act --Contested Cases § 10-205. Delegation of hearing authority," accessed March 27, 2020
  6. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 14 - 15A — State Agencies, Chapter 14 — Administrative Procedure, Section 14.48 — Office Of Administrative Hearings," accessed March 27, 2020
  7. ↑ JUSTIA, "2017 New Jersey Revised Statutes, TITLE 52 - STATE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICERS, Section 52:14B-10 - Evidence; judicial notice; recommended report and decision; final decision; effective date," accessed March 27, 2020
  8. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 150B - Administrative Procedure Act, Article 3 - Administrative Hearings. § 150B-32 - Designation of administrative law judge," accessed March 27, 2020
  9. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Oregon Revised Statutes, Volume : 05 - State Government, Government Procedures, Land Use, Chapter 183 - Administrative Procedures Act; Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, Section 183.610 - Chief administrative law judge," accessed March 27, 2020
  10. ↑ South Carolina Legislature, "South Carolina Code of Laws Unannotated, Title 1 - Administration of the Government, CHAPTER 23, State Agency Rule Making and Adjudication of Contested Cases, ARTICLE 1, State Register and Code of Regulations," accessed March 27, 2020
  11. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Connecticut General Statutes, Title 4 - Management of State Agencies, Chapter 54 - Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Section 4-166 - Definitions," accessed March 27, 2020
  12. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 13B - Administrative hearings, 13B.030 Powers of agency head -- Hearing officers," accessed March 27, 2020
  13. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Maine Revised Statutes, TITLE 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES, Part 18: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, Chapter 375: MAINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, Subchapter 4: ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS 5 §9062. Presiding officers," accessed March 27, 2020
  14. ↑ Michigan Legislature, "Administrative Procedures Act of 1969," accessed March 27, 2020
  15. ↑ Wisconsin Legislature, "Administrative Procedure and Review," accessed March 27, 2020
  16. ↑ JUSTIA, "2017 Kansas Statutes, Chapter 77 STATUTES; ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE, Article 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 77-561 Office of administrative hearings; director; employees," accessed March 27, 2020
  17. ↑ JUSTIA, "2018 Louisiana Laws, Revised Statutes, TITLE 49 - State Administration, RS 49:994 - Administrative law judges," accessed March 27, 2020
  18. ↑ JUSTIA, "2017 Tennessee Code Title 4 - State Government, Chapter 5 - Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Part 2 - Rulemaking and Publications § 4-5-226. Expiration of rules -- Review by general assembly," accessed February 14, 2020
  19. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Code of Virginia, Title 2.2 - Administration of Government, Chapter 40 - Administrative Process Act § 2.2-4024. Hearing officers," accessed March 27, 2020
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Executive_control_of_agencies:_Organization_of_state_administrative_law_judges&oldid=10490656"