Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
State administrative law judge
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| 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. |
- See also: Administrative law judge
State administrative law judge, or state-level administrative law judge, in the context of administrative law, refers to an official who presides over state-level agency adjudication proceedings. Similar to federal administrative law judges (ALJs), who preside over agency adjudication proceedings at the federal level, state ALJs adjudicate cases for state-level administrative agencies. The scope and authority of state ALJs vary according to their respective states.[1][2]
Background
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 established ALJs at the federal level. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government created ALJs as impartial adjudicators in order to "ensure fairness in administrative proceedings before Federal Government agencies." The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed a Model State Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, which was updated in 1961, 1981, and 2010. Many states drew from these model laws to establish their own versions of the APA and create state-level ALJs to preside over adjudication proceedings for state administrative agencies.[3][1][2][4][5]
State ALJ operations vary by state. While some states mirror the federal ALJ structure by allowing state agencies to maintain a roster of state ALJs, 28 states operate a central panel of ALJs who are assigned to agencies as needed.[6][7] The California Administrative Practice Act established the first state-level central ALJ panel in 1945.[8] The central panel model was later proposed in the American Bar Association's 1981 Model State Administrative Procedure Act. Local governments have also established central ALJ panels, including New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Illinois, and Cook County, Illinois.[4][9][10]
The scope and authority of state ALJs also vary by state. While some states allow state ALJs to administer rulings, others only view state ALJ determinations as recommendations.[11]
Noteworthy events
North Carolina bill would allow state ALJs to nullify agency rules (2022)
North Carolina state Representative Sarah Stevens (R) on May 18, 2022, filed legislation that aims to place a check on state agency authority by granting the state’s administrative law judges (ALJs) the power to nullify certain agency rules.[12]
Under existing law, North Carolina ALJs have the power to declare an agency rule void “as applied in a particular case” if the rule meets three criteria: (1) the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, (2) the rule is ambiguous in its direction for regulated parties, and (3) the rule is not required for the agency to fulfill its statutory duty. House Bill 991 would broaden ALJs’ authority to declare rules that meet the three-part criteria void in all applications, not only with respect to a specific agency enforcement.[12]
House Bill 991 was pending in the House Judiciary Committee as of June 14, 2022.[12]
Indiana moves administrative law judges to central panel (2020)
The state of Indiana on July 1, 2020, launched the new Office of Administrative Law Proceedings (OALP) to serve a central hub for the state’s administrative law judges (ALJs) and agency adjudicative proceedings.[7]
The Indiana General Assembly passed legislation in 2019 authorizing the creation of the OALP.[7]
The new central office transitions ALJs away from direct employment or contractual relationships with state agencies. The OALP seeks to promote the independence of ALJs by ensuring that ALJs serve as neutral adjudicators in administrative proceedings, according to the office.[13]
Twenty-seven other states centralize their ALJ corps and provide ALJs to state agencies on request. ALJs in the remaining states—and the federal government—are appointed by agency heads or hired as employees to conduct administrative proceedings at specific agencies.[6]
Suspended Florida ALJ raises questions about independent decision-making authority (2020)
A Florida ALJ raised questions about ALJ independence in the state after he was suspended for including footnotes in an opinion suggesting that Chief ALJ John MacIver had made ex parte communications in the process of reviewing opinions.[14]
MacIver began reviewing and commenting on ALJ opinions before they were finalized shortly after he was appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) in October 2019.[15]
Florida ALJ John Van Laningham included footnotes in a March 13 opinion claiming that MacIver’s comments equated to ex parte communications. Florida administrative law prohibits ex parte communications—case discussions between the presiding ALJ and interested parties without the knowledge of all involved.[15]
Van Laningham, according to his attorney, included the footnotes as a means to carry out what he considered to be his statutory duty to disclose communications that he believed to be relevant to the merits of the case. He claims that his suspension for independently analyzing a statute and determining its applicability to the case threatens the independent decision-making authority of ALJs stipulated in the Florida Administrative Procedure Act.[15]
Van Laningham’s fellow ALJs disagreed with the footnotes and recommended his temporary suspension, effective April 1. His colleagues argued that Van Laningham’s his characterization of MacIver’s review as an ex parte communication did not align with the standard definition, and that MacIver’s process of regularly reviewing his subordinates’ work prior to being finalized is within his purview.[15]
Van Laningham appealed the suspension to the state’s Public Employee Relations Commission on April 15, 2020.[15]
ABA adopts model code of conduct for state ALJs (2018)
The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a model code of conduct for state ALJs on August 7, 2018.[16]
The code, according to the ABA, aims at protecting the integrity and independence of state ALJs, who—as officers of the executive branch rather than the judicial branch—function outside of judicial codes of conduct. The ABA stated that ALJs’ position within the executive branch rather than the judicial branch makes them vulnerable to interference from executive branch officials. Such interference could threaten their impartiality, according to the ABA.
Judge rules Missouri lawmakers violated state Constitution by defunding state-level ALJ position (2018)
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem issued a decision on July 17, 2018, holding that Missouri lawmakers violated the state Constitution by defunding a state ALJ position in the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.[17]
Lawrence Rebman, a former labor department director, was named to the state ALJ position by former Governor Jay Nixon (D) in March 2013. During his tenure, Rebman was named in two employment cases that cost the state more than $3 million in settlement payments. In the spring of 2018, state lawmakers approved a budget that funded state ALJs in the Worker’s Compensation Division if they were appointed before January 1, 2012, or after January 1, 2015—narrowly eliminating Rebman’s position. Former assistant attorney general J. Andrew Hirth filed a lawsuit to block Rebman’s removal. According to briefs filed in the case, the state argued that lawmakers had the right to remove Rebman due to his involvement in the settlements and the potential risk of future settlements.[17]
Judge Beetem ruled that the legislature’s effort to defund Rebman’s position was unconstitutional. He stated that the elimination of a state ALJ position through the appropriations process violated the state Constitution’s prohibition against special legislation. Beetem also argued that lawmakers had failed to adhere to an existing state law governing the removal process for state ALJs through a bipartisan review committee. Moreover, he held that the legislation violated the separation of powers because only department heads hold the authority to select or remove an appointed position within the department. Lastly, Beetem ruled that the removal effort violated the state Constitution’s declaration that "all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law."[17]
The state attorney general's office had yet to comment on the decision as of July 23, 2018.[17]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 JUSTIA, "Administrative Law Judges," accessed July 21, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Congressional Research Service, "Administrative Law Judges: An Overview," April 13, 2010
- ↑ U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Qualification Standard For Administrative Law Judge Positions," accessed July 20, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Administrative Law Judges: Past, Present and Future," 1992
- ↑ National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, "MODEL STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ISSUES AND POLICY STATEMENT," accessed August 17, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 State of Maryland, "Office of Administrative Hearings," accessed September 13, 2019
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 JDSupra.com, "Indiana Launches new Office of State Administrative Proceedings," July 2, 2020
- ↑ [https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1540&context=naalj Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Administrative Hearings: State Central Panels in the 1990s," 1994]
- ↑ American Bar Association, "A MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES," August 2018
- ↑ JUSTIA, "State-Level Administrative Law," accessed August 17, 2018
- ↑ Harvard Law School, "A Guide to Careers in Administrative Law," accessed August 17, 2018
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 991," accessed June 23, 2022
- ↑ Indiana Office of Administrative Law Proceedings, "About," accessed July 9, 2020
- ↑ Law and Crime, "Judge Criticized Ron DeSantis Appointee and Ended Up Getting Suspended for ‘Insubordination,'" April 6, 2020
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Tallahassee Democrat, "Tallahassee administrative law judge fights suspension, calling it ‘gross abuse of power,'" April 16, 2020
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Resolution, accessed August 31, 2018
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 News Tribune, "Judge: Legislature violated Constitution with administrative law judge’s elimination," July 20, 2018
