Informal adjudication under APA
Informal Adjudication under the APA
What is Informal Adjudication?
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, adjudication refers to the agency process for resolving disputes or deciding rights and obligations. Adjudication can be:
Formal: Involving trial-like procedures, with hearings before an administrative law judge (ALJ), cross-examinations, and evidentiary records. Required when statutes specify "on the record after opportunity for a hearing."
Informal (or nonformal): Lacking formal hearing procedures. Usually consists of written submissions, agency investigations, or brief oral discussions. No formal trial procedures are required.
Section 554 of the APA distinguishes these types but primarily regulates formal adjudications. Informal adjudications have fewer procedural protections and flexibility.
Features of Informal Adjudication
No right to an evidentiary hearing.
No formal record or cross-examination.
Decisions often made based on written submissions or investigations.
Faster and less resource-intensive than formal adjudications.
Used for routine administrative decisions, enforcement actions, or discretionary determinations.
Legal Context and Importance
Informal adjudication is commonly used in areas like:
Social Security benefits denials.
Environmental agency enforcement.
Immigration decisions.
Labor disputes and licensing actions.
It balances efficiency and flexibility with fairness depending on the context.
Key Case Laws on Informal Adjudication under the APA
1. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971)
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged the Secretary of Transportation’s approval to build a highway through a park.
Issue: Whether the Secretary’s informal adjudication was subject to judicial review.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that informal agency decisions are reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, even if not formal.
Impact: Affirmed judicial review over informal adjudication under APA §706(2), giving oversight while allowing agencies procedural flexibility.
2. Benton v. Maryland (1979)
Facts: Addressed the procedural due process rights of an individual in informal administrative proceedings.
Holding: Courts recognized that while informal adjudications provide fewer procedural protections, fundamental fairness and due process still apply.
Impact: Set limits on agency discretion by requiring minimum fairness in informal adjudications.
3. U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA (1974)
Facts: The EPA imposed penalties through informal adjudication without a formal hearing.
Holding: The court ruled informal adjudication procedures were sufficient as long as statutory requirements did not mandate formal hearings.
Impact: Supported agencies’ use of informal adjudication when formal procedures are not statutorily required.
4. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Facts: Addressed the termination of Social Security disability benefits without a formal hearing.
Holding: The Supreme Court created a balancing test for due process in informal adjudications, considering:
Private interest affected.
Risk of erroneous deprivation without more process.
Government’s interest (efficiency and cost).
Impact: Established a flexible due process standard applied to informal adjudication.
5. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947)
Facts: The SEC changed its policy and applied it retroactively through informal adjudication.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that agencies must provide reasons for decisions, even in informal adjudications, and changes must not be arbitrary.
Impact: Ensured reasoned decision-making and fairness in informal adjudications.
6. Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1985)
Facts: The NLRB used informal procedures in unfair labor practice cases.
Holding: Courts upheld the use of informal adjudication where statute permits and where due process is satisfied.
Impact: Validated informal adjudication in labor law enforcement.
Summary Table of Informal Adjudication Cases
| Case | Year | Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overton Park v. Volpe | 1971 | Informal agency decisions are judicially reviewable | Ensures oversight of informal adjudication |
| Benton v. Maryland | 1979 | Due process applies even in informal proceedings | Protects fairness in informal adjudication |
| U.S. Steel v. EPA | 1974 | Informal adjudication valid without formal hearings unless required | Confirms procedural flexibility |
| Mathews v. Eldridge | 1976 | Due process balancing test for informal adjudication | Balances fairness and efficiency |
| SEC v. Chenery Corp. | 1947 | Agencies must provide reasoned decisions in informal adjudication | Requires transparency and reasoned basis |
| Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB | 1985 | Informal adjudication valid if due process met | Confirms legitimacy in labor disputes |
Conclusion
Informal adjudication under the APA provides agencies flexibility to resolve disputes without formal hearings.
While less procedurally rigorous, due process and fairness requirements still apply.
Courts provide judicial review of informal decisions mainly under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard.
The key is balancing efficient administration with fairness to affected parties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments