Appointment of ALJs
Appointment of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
What is an ALJ?
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is a neutral adjudicator within federal agencies who conducts hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues initial decisions in administrative proceedings.
ALJs function like judges but within the executive branch, ensuring fair adjudication of disputes involving government benefits, enforcement actions, and regulatory compliance.
Legal Framework for ALJ Appointment
ALJs are “inferior officers” under the U.S. Constitution and the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).
Historically, ALJs were appointed by agency heads or through civil service processes.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the role of ALJs and certain protections to ensure impartiality.
The Appointments Clause requires that officers be appointed by the President, courts, or heads of departments—not by lower officials or employees.
Constitutional Issues: Who Can Appoint ALJs?
The Appointments Clause distinguishes:
Principal officers: Must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.
Inferior officers: Can be appointed by the President, courts, or department heads.
A key question has been whether ALJs are “inferior officers” requiring formal appointment by a department head, or mere employees who can be hired through civil service.
Key Cases on Appointment of ALJs
1. Freytag v. Commissioner (1991)
Facts: Tax Court special trial judges (similar to ALJs) were appointed by the Tax Court rather than the Department of Treasury.
Issue: Whether these judges are inferior officers requiring appointment by a principal officer.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that special trial judges are inferior officers and must be appointed consistent with the Appointments Clause.
Significance: Established that ALJ-like judges performing significant adjudicative functions are officers, not employees.
Takeaway: Reinforced constitutional appointment requirements for ALJs.
2. Lucia v. SEC (2018)
Facts: SEC ALJs were hired through civil service processes without appointment by a “head of department.”
Issue: Whether SEC ALJs are inferior officers and thus must be appointed under the Appointments Clause.
Holding: The Court held SEC ALJs are inferior officers and their appointments were unconstitutional because they were not appointed by the SEC Commissioners (heads of department).
Significance: Required agencies to ensure ALJs are appointed by proper officers.
Takeaway: Agencies had to either reappoint ALJs properly or risk decisions being invalidated.
3. Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010)
Although not directly about ALJs, this case touched on the proper appointment and removal of administrative officials, emphasizing separation of powers.
Significance: Sets context for appointments and removal protections for executive officers, including ALJs.
4. United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (2021)
Facts: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) challenged their appointments.
Issue: Whether APJs are inferior officers improperly appointed because they could not be removed by the Secretary of Commerce.
Holding: The Court held APJs are inferior officers whose tenure protections unconstitutionally limited the Secretary’s removal power.
Significance: Required structural changes to preserve appointment and removal powers.
Relation to ALJs: Reinforces scrutiny on the constitutional status and appointment of administrative judges.
5. Butz v. Economou (1978)
Facts: Addressed judicial immunity for ALJs and their official actions.
Issue: Whether ALJs enjoy judicial immunity from suits challenging their decisions.
Holding: ALJs are protected by judicial immunity for actions within their jurisdiction.
Significance: Recognizes the quasi-judicial role and independence of ALJs.
Relation: Implies ALJs perform significant judicial functions akin to officers.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Freytag v. Commissioner | Are ALJs inferior officers? | Yes; must be appointed consistent with Appointments Clause |
| Lucia v. SEC | Are SEC ALJs properly appointed? | No; ALJs must be appointed by “head of department” |
| United States v. Arthrex | Appointment and removal protections of APJs | APJs are inferior officers; tenure limits invalid |
| Butz v. Economou | Judicial immunity for ALJs | ALJs enjoy judicial immunity for official acts |
| Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB | Appointment and removal of administrative officers | Emphasizes executive control and constitutional appointment |
Conclusion
The appointment of ALJs is constitutionally significant because ALJs perform important adjudicative functions and qualify as inferior officers under the Appointments Clause. Following Lucia v. SEC, agencies must appoint ALJs properly through department heads, not merely through civil service procedures.
The cases affirm ALJs' role as impartial adjudicators with protections ensuring their independence and constitutional legitimacy. The evolving case law continues to clarify the balance between agency autonomy and constitutional safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments