Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Procedural rights: States that provide for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings (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 This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.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 provided for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings as of June 2020.

Because state administrative agencies are unlike traditional state courts, the same rules do not always apply. The absence of jury participation is a way agency adjudication differs from the traditional judicial process that state courts follow.

Understanding the procedural protections available during adjudication provides insight into 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, no state constitutions or APAs provided for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings as of June 2020. Thus, hearing officers or other agency officials presided over and decided the outcome of adjudications instead of people from the community.

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 provided for juries to participate during agency adjudication. 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 of the state government but rather the executive, they often have due process standards that differ from those followed in the traditional judicial branch courts.

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.

Ballotpedia learned that no state constitutions or APAs provided for juries to participate in the adjudication process.

Methodology

Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states provided for juries to participate in the adjudication process. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency orders, penalties, hearings, or appeals to see whether juries could be involved at any point.

Other state laws might have provided for jury participation in adjudication hearings, but those were beyond the scope of this survey.

Summary of findings

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

  • No states provided for jury participation during agency adjudication hearings

Results: States that provided for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those with specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs providing for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings.

  • Done means that the state provided for juries to participate in adjudication hearings
  • DefeatedA means that the state did not provide for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings

Other state laws that might have provided for jury participation in the agency adjudication process were beyond the scope of this survey.

State Constitution or APA provisions for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings
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 DefeatedA
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 DefeatedA
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
Notes: * - The Tennessee Constitution requires juries to assess fines larger than $50, but the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the limitation applies only to the judicial branch.[1]

See also

Footnotes