Due process in administrative adjudication
Due Process in Administrative Adjudication
Due process is a constitutional guarantee under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that requires the government to follow fair procedures before depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. In the context of administrative adjudication, where agencies resolve disputes or impose sanctions through formal or informal hearings, due process ensures fairness in the process.
Key Elements of Due Process in Administrative Adjudication:
Notice — Adequate and timely notice of the charges or issues.
Right to be heard — Opportunity to present evidence, argument, and call witnesses.
Impartial decision-maker — Fair and unbiased adjudicator.
Right to counsel — Depending on the case, the right to have legal representation.
Record and findings — A record of the proceedings and a reasoned decision.
Right to cross-examine — Especially in formal hearings.
Important Case Law Explaining Due Process in Administrative Adjudication
1. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts:
Welfare recipients challenged the termination of their benefits without a pre-termination hearing.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that due process requires a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before cutting off welfare benefits because they constitute a property interest.
Significance:
Established that administrative decisions affecting significant interests (such as benefits) require notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation, not just after.
2. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Facts:
The case concerned termination of Social Security disability benefits without a prior hearing.
Holding:
The Court developed a balancing test to determine the required procedural protections, weighing:
The private interest affected,
The risk of erroneous deprivation through current procedures, and
The government’s interest, including fiscal and administrative burdens.
Significance:
This case is the leading test for procedural due process in administrative adjudication, guiding the extent of required procedures based on context.
3. Withrow v. Larkin (1975)
Facts:
Physician challenged a disciplinary hearing by a medical licensing board.
Holding:
The Court held that an administrative adjudicator can be both investigator and decision-maker without violating due process unless there is a probability of bias.
Significance:
Recognized that agencies can perform multiple roles but must remain impartial in adjudication.
4. Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Facts:
Taxpayers challenged the method of imposing special assessments without a hearing.
Holding:
The Court ruled that due process requires an opportunity to be heard when a specific assessment is made against an individual, distinguishing it from general legislative taxation.
Significance:
Early foundational case establishing the right to a hearing when individual rights or interests are affected.
5. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915)
Facts:
The government imposed a general tax increase affecting many.
Holding:
The Court held no hearing was required for general policy decisions affecting the public at large.
Significance:
Distinguished general legislative action from individual adjudication requiring due process.
6. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947)
Facts:
The SEC rescinded a rule in an enforcement proceeding.
Holding:
The Court emphasized that agencies must explain their reasoning in administrative adjudications and that due process requires fair notice of grounds and issues.
Significance:
Highlights procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making in agency adjudication.
7. S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp. (1947) (second Chenery case)
Facts:
The SEC imposed sanctions on new grounds not previously considered.
Holding:
The Court held agencies cannot impose sanctions on new legal grounds in adjudication without notice and an opportunity to respond.
Significance:
Due process prohibits agencies from changing the rules midstream without fair notice.
Summary Table: Due Process in Administrative Adjudication Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) | Welfare benefits termination | Requires pre-termination hearing for benefits |
| Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) | Extent of procedures required | Balancing test for procedural due process |
| Withrow v. Larkin (1975) | Bias and impartiality | Investigator can be decision-maker if no bias |
| Londoner v. Denver (1908) | Tax assessments hearing | Hearing required when specific individual rights affected |
| Bi-Metallic Investment (1915) | General taxation | No hearing required for general legislative actions |
| SEC v. Chenery (1947) | Reasoned decision-making | Agencies must explain decisions and give fair notice |
| SEC v. Chenery (2nd, 1947) | New grounds in enforcement | Agencies cannot impose new legal grounds without notice |
Conclusion
Due process in administrative adjudication requires fair procedures tailored to the situation, generally including:
Notice of the issues,
Opportunity to be heard,
An impartial adjudicator,
And a reasoned decision.
RELATED Blog
0 comments