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

Procedural rights: States that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication (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 This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.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 2020 Ballotpedia survey about administrative due process and procedural rights. Ballotpedia reviewed the 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication.

Placing the burden of proof on administrative agencies requires them to shoulder the responsibility of establishing the merits of their claims during adjudication.

Because state administrative agencies are not part of the judicial branch of government, adjudication proceedings before them do not necessarily afford the same procedural protections as in a courtroom trial. Ballotpedia conducted this survey in 2020 to see whether states give agencies the responsibility of proving their cases.

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, 2 state APAs placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication, as of November 2020. No state constitutions placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication at that time.

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 place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication. Placing the burden of proof on administrative agencies requires them to shoulder the responsibility of establishing the merits of their claims during adjudication.

For instance, Hawaii placed "the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion" on the party who initiates an adjudication proceeding, as of 2020. Under Hawaii's rules at that time, the burden of proof could fall on the agency or the regulated party.[1]

In Kentucky, by contrast, agencies had "the burden to show the propriety of a penalty imposed or the removal of a benefit previously granted," as of 2020.[2]

Methodology

Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency adjudication to see whether states included such provisions.

In 2020, Ballotpedia concluded that Kentucky and North Carolina placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication because provisions in their APAs described certain cases in which agencies have the burden of proof. In most other states, the state APA placed the burden of proof on whoever initiated adjudication proceedings—either the state agency or a regulated person or business.

Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes. The particular procedures outlined in each APA vary among the 50 states.

Other state laws might place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication but those were beyond the scope of this survey.

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 November 2020):

  • 2 states had APAs with provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication as of 2020.
  • 48 states had APAs and constitutions that do not appear to place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication as of 2020.

Results: States that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those that had specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs that placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication in 2020.

  • Done means that the state APA or constitution placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
  • DefeatedA means that the state APA or constitution did not place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication

Other state laws that might place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication were beyond the scope of this survey.

State Constitution or APA provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
Alabama DefeatedA
Alaska DefeatedA
Arizona DefeatedA
Arkansas DefeatedA
California DefeatedA
Colorado DefeatedA
Connecticut DefeatedA
Delaware DefeatedA
Florida DefeatedA
Georgia DefeatedA
Hawaii DefeatedA
Idaho DefeatedA
Illinois DefeatedA
Indiana DefeatedA
Iowa DefeatedA
Kansas DefeatedA
Kentucky Done
Louisiana DefeatedA
Maine DefeatedA
Maryland DefeatedA
Massachusetts DefeatedA
Michigan DefeatedA
Minnesota DefeatedA
Mississippi DefeatedA
Missouri DefeatedA
Montana DefeatedA
Nebraska DefeatedA
Nevada DefeatedA
New Hampshire DefeatedA
New Jersey DefeatedA
New Mexico DefeatedA
New York DefeatedA
North Carolina Done
North Dakota DefeatedA
Ohio DefeatedA
Oklahoma DefeatedA
Oregon DefeatedA
Pennsylvania DefeatedA
Rhode Island DefeatedA
South Carolina DefeatedA
South Dakota DefeatedA
Tennessee DefeatedA
Texas DefeatedA
Utah DefeatedA
Vermont DefeatedA
Virginia DefeatedA
Washington DefeatedA
West Virginia DefeatedA
Wisconsin DefeatedA
Wyoming DefeatedA

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Hawaii Revised Statutes, TITLE 8. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS, 91. Administrative Procedure, 91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice.," accessed November 12, 2020
  2. ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 13B - Administrative hearings, 13B.090 Findings of fact, Evidence, Recording of hearing, Burdens of proof," accessed November 23, 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_place_the_burden_of_proof_on_administrative_agencies_during_adjudication&oldid=10416188"