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

Procedural rights: States that permit administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures (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 This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.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 administrative due process. Ballotpedia reviewed the 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures (as of August 2020).

Formal adjudication procedures approximate those of a traditional state court and include trial-like, adversarial hearings with witnesses, a written record, and a final decision made by a neutral presiding officer. Informal adjudication procedures vary but do not require a hearing with oral testimony, cross-examination of witnesses, or a verbatim stenographic record.

Because state administrative agencies are unlike traditional state courts, the same rules of hearing procedure do not always apply. Ballotpedia conducted this survey to see whether state agencies must provide formal trial-like hearings in every case they adjudicate or whether they could use less rigorous procedures to resolve disputes.

Understanding adjudication procedures provides insight into due process procedural rights of citizens at the state level. Procedural rights is one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.

According to the Ballotpedia survey, 45 state APAs permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures and three more states permit agencies to use informal procedures in some cases, as of August 2020. Administrative agencies in those states had the option to avoid trial-like hearings during adjudication.

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 and methodology

Background

For this survey, Ballotpedia examined whether states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures. States that permitted adjudication through informal procedures allowed agencies to resolve disputes without conducting trial-like hearings.

Adjudication proceedings include agency determinations outside of the rulemaking process that aim to resolve disputes between either agencies and private parties or between two private parties. 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.

As administrative agencies are not part of the judicial branch but rather the executive branch, adjudication proceedings do not necessarily have all of the trappings associated with a trial in front of a state court.

Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs), which govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes, vary among the 50 states, but many offer fewer procedural protections for those accused of wrongdoing than a defendant would have in a courtroom.

Methodology

Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and APAs to see whether states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency orders, penalties, hearings, or appeals to see what kinds of procedures agencies had to follow to make adjudication decisions.

Most states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures. Ballotpedia concluded, therefore, that those states permitted agencies to conduct informal adjudication.

Some states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures only in certain cases. Ballotpedia concluded, therefore, that the states sometimes permitted administrative agencies to conduct informal adjudication.

Some state APAs or constitutions did not mention whether they permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures. Ballotpedia concluded, therefore, that they did not mention whether they permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures.

To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.

Summary of findings

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

  • 45 states permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures.
  • 3 states sometimes permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures.
    • Colorado's APA allowed administrative agencies to use informal procedures only when adjudicating disputes with people licensed to practice an occupation or profession.[1]
    • Ohio's APA listed specific adjudication orders that administrative agencies may issue following informal procedures.[2]
    • Pennsylvania's APA listed specific administrative agencies that may conduct informal adjudication and specific subjects that agencies may resolve following informal adjudication.[3]
  • 2 states did not mention whether administrative agencies may use informal adjudication procedures.

Results: States that permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those with specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs that permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures.

  • Done means that the state permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures
  • In progress... means that the state sometimes permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures
  • DefeatedA means that the state did not mention whether it permits administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures

State laws, beyond the constitution and APA, that permitted administrative agencies to use informal adjudication procedures were outside the scope of this survey.

State Constitution or APA provisions about whether administrative agencies may use informal adjudication procedures
Alabama Done
Alaska DefeatedA
Arizona Done
Arkansas Done
California Done
Colorado In progress...
Connecticut Done
Delaware Done
Florida Done
Georgia Done
Hawaii Done
Idaho Done
Illinois Done
Indiana Done
Iowa Done
Kansas Done
Kentucky Done
Louisiana Done
Maine Done
Maryland Done
Massachusetts Done
Michigan Done
Minnesota Done
Mississippi DefeatedA
Missouri Done
Montana Done
Nebraska Done
Nevada Done
New Hampshire Done
New Jersey Done
New Mexico Done
New York Done
North Carolina Done
North Dakota Done
Ohio In progress...
Oklahoma Done
Oregon Done
Pennsylvania In progress...
Rhode Island Done
South Carolina Done
South Dakota Done
Tennessee Done
Texas Done
Utah Done
Vermont Done
Virginia Done
Washington Done
West Virginia Done
Wisconsin Done
Wyoming Done

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "C.R.S. Title 24 Government - State, Article 4 Rule-making and licensing procedures by state agencies," accessed August 12, 2020
  2. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Ohio Revised Code Title 1 STATE GOVERNMENT, Chapter 119 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, Section 119.06 - Adjudication order of agency valid and effective - hearings - periodic registration of licenses.," accessed August 12, 2020
  3. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE, Chapter 5 - Practice and Procedure, Section 501 - Scope of subchapter," accessed August 12, 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=Procedural_rights:_States_that_permit_administrative_agencies_to_use_informal_adjudication_procedures&oldid=10427972"