Administrative adjudication proceedings are a way for agencies to implement policies. Federal and state agencies adjudicate a wide variety of matters. These matters can involve anything from applications for public benefits to enforcement actions against people or businesses suspected of violating the law. The Administrative Procedure Act establishes requirements for an adversarial, trial-type process for adjudication, but this formal model is not the only model. Federal and state agencies use both formal and informal models to adjudicate disputes, which can be confusing for people or businesses disputing or charged with violating a specific agency rule.
At Progressive Law, LLC, our administrative law attorney in MA represents clients who must go before an administrative judge, either in a formal or informal setting. We understand the processes and the factors that go into administrative adjudication. If you wish to dispute an administrative rule or have been suspected of violating a rule, contact us at 9787468843 to schedule a Free 15 Minute Telephone consultation.
Understanding Administrative Adjudication
Federal administrative agencies perform two main types of actions:
- Rulemaking
- Adjudication
Rulemaking looks forward by developing broad, general rules for future conduct governed by an agency. Adjudication, on the other hand, looks backward by reviewing the agency's application of a rule or policy.
Adjudication is often meant to resolve a dispute between one or more private parties and the agency or two or more private parties. The adjudication process results in an adjudicative order that settles the dispute and, sometimes, establishes agency policy.
Administrative agencies typically set up and manage their own adjudication processes, with an administrative law judge (ALJ), administrative judge (AJ), or another presiding official hearing and deciding a matter.
Examples of Administrative Adjudication
- Decisions by the Social Security Administration to grant or deny an individual their disability benefits
- Removal proceedings in immigration court against someone who has overstayed their visa
- Proceedings initiated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against a company for an alleged violation of a consumer protection statute
The Administrative Adjudication Process
The administrative adjudication process varies from agency to agency as well as from federal and state agencies. General steps, however, are consistent among most agencies.
The process is typically started in one of three ways:
- The agency files a notice against a private party – individual or entity – to notify them that they are in violation of a law that the agency administers; or
- An individual or entity appeals an agency decision; or
- An individual or entity applies for licensure, accreditation, or other agency permissions.
Once the case has been filed, an administrative law judge presides over the proceedings, setting up hearings and issuing orders similar to a bench trial until the case concludes.
Burden of Proof
A decision-maker decides an administrative case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence more likely than not proves one side over the other side. This standard is typical of civil litigation and has a lower bar than criminal cases where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof is held by the party seeking to issue a rule or order from the decision-maker.
For example, if an agency wants to impose a civil penalty on a party for violating a rule, the government has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the party was indeed in violation. The same is true for a person who lost their social security benefits and wants these benefits reinstated: They must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they meet the statutory qualifications for them.
Judicial Review and Standards of Review
Final agency decisions by an ALJ can be subject to judicial review. Under judicial review, there are three types of standards of review established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557.
- Substantial evidence. This standard of review applies mostly to formal adjudication. The court must determine whether an agency's actions were reasonable. If reasonable, the rule is upheld. If not reasonable, the rule is invalidated.
- Arbitrary and capricious. This standard of review is mostly applied in informal adjudication settings. The court considers the relevant factors and determines whether "a clear error of judgment" occurred. If the action is invalidated, it is usually remanded to the agency to substantiate the record.
- Statutory interpretation. This standard of review requires the court to first determine whether Congress has addressed the "precise question at issue." If so, the court defers to the legislation. If not, the court must decide whether the agency's action was based on a "permissible construction of the statute."
The Difference Between Formal and Informal Adjudication
Administrative adjudication proceedings can be formal or informal.
Formal Adjudication
Formal administrative adjudication proceedings are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act's formal hearing provisions.
An agency's statute will either expressly state that the APA's formal hearing provisions apply or that a hearing “on the record” is required. Notice must be given to the subject of the formal adjudication and include the following details:
- Time, place, and nature of the hearing
- Legal authority and jurisdiction
- Matters of asserted facts and law
Formal adjudication follows a trial-like process. An ALJ oversees the process. The parties can present evidence, including witnesses. The parties can also cross-examine the witnesses. The ALJ then presents their findings and conclusions in the decision.
Informal Adjudication
All other types of administrative adjudication proceedings are referred to as informal adjudication. Informal adjudication is typically governed by statutes other than the APA and agency-made rules.
Informal adjudication processes vary across agencies and can appear formal in structure without following the APA's formal hearing provisions.
While not governed by the APA, some APA rules are applied to informal adjudication proceedings. These include:
- The right to legal representation
- The right to receive notice of the grounds for an agency's denial of a request
- The right to seek judicial review of an agency's final decision
Due process protections also apply when an agency's action deprives someone of their liberty or property rights, like a professional license or driver's license.
The majority of administrative adjudication proceedings are informal.
Administrative Adjudication and the Rules of Evidence
While the rules of evidence that apply to administrative adjudications are not as strict as those in criminal proceedings, some similarities are notable, especially when it comes to formal adjudication proceedings.
Formal adjudication involves trial-like proceedings. All parties have the right to present both oral and documentary evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The ALJ can receive relevant evidence and exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly repetitive.
Agencies can develop their own rules of evidence for informal adjudication proceedings, however, they often follow a similar approach to formal adjudication.
The Role of Impartiality and Bias in Administrative Adjudication
As an agency administers its own administrative adjudication proceedings, the principle of impartiality and the potential for bias are two important factors to consider.
Impartiality requires objective or neutral decision-making, without bias, prejudice, or favor to one party. Bias is any personal inclination that may sway the decision-maker, making their decision impartial.
Examples of impartial or biased decision-making include situations when the decision-maker:
- Has previously demonstrated ill will to one party
- Has pre-judged an issue in the case
- Possesses a financial or another personal interest in the outcome of a case
Formal adjudication proceedings often incorporate measures to encourage impartial decision-making. For example, ALJs are hired and managed by the Office of Personnel Management, a separate agency from the one they represent.
Under the APA, an individual or business involved in a formal adjudication proceeding can seek to disqualify an ALJ if there is evidence of bias. Agency staff involved in the investigation stage of proceedings cannot be involved in the adjudication or review of a decision, except for the head of an agency.
Contact an Administrative Law Attorney in MA Today
Administrative adjudication is a way for individuals or organizations to dispute or respond to allegations of violations of agency rules and regulations. At Progressive Law, LLC, our administrative law attorney in Haverhill is here to help you through the process. Contact us today at 9787468843 or fill out our online form. We will schedule a Free 15 Minute Telephone consultation to get your administrative matter moving in the right direction.