Removal and independence of ALJs
Removal and Independence of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
What are ALJs?
ALJs are officials who conduct administrative hearings within agencies.
They function similarly to judges but within the executive branch.
Their independence is critical to ensure fair, impartial adjudication free from agency pressure.
Why is ALJ Independence Important?
ALJs decide disputes involving private parties and government agencies.
Independence ensures unbiased decisions, protecting due process rights.
However, they are agency employees, raising questions about removal protections and executive control.
Removal of ALJs: The Central Issue
How much protection should ALJs have from removal by agency heads or the President?
Too much protection may undermine accountability and executive control.
Too little protection risks political influence on adjudication.
Key Legal Questions
Are ALJs considered "inferior officers" under the Constitution?
What removal protections do ALJs have?
Can the executive branch remove ALJs at will?
How do removal protections affect ALJ independence and agency accountability?
Landmark Case Law on Removal and Independence of ALJs
1. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
Facts: Challenge to the Independent Counsel’s removal protections.
Issue: Whether limitations on removal violate the President’s executive power.
Holding: The Court upheld removal protections for the Independent Counsel as constitutional because the office was an “inferior officer” with limited duties.
Significance:
Endorsed some removal protections for officers performing adjudicatory or investigative functions.
Set precedent that some insulation from removal is compatible with executive authority.
Implication for ALJs: Supported the idea that ALJs, as inferior officers, can have protections.
2. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts: Challenged double removal protections shielding PCAOB members.
Issue: Whether such protections violate the separation of powers.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the dual-layer removal protection as unconstitutional.
Significance:
Reaffirmed President’s removal power is fundamental.
Invalidated excessive insulation from removal.
Implication: Signals limits on ALJ removal protections; courts wary of too much insulation undermining accountability.
3. Lucia v. SEC (2018)
Facts: ALJs at SEC had been appointed without following the Appointments Clause.
Issue: Whether ALJs are "Officers of the United States" requiring appointment by President or head of department.
Holding: The Court ruled ALJs are “inferior officers” under the Constitution, thus requiring proper appointment.
Significance:
Recognized ALJs as officers, not mere employees.
Reinforced ALJ independence by requiring constitutionally valid appointment.
Implies ALJs have heightened constitutional status affecting removal and independence.
4. Butz v. Economou (1978)
Facts: Plaintiffs alleged ALJs were biased, and agency head failed to ensure impartiality.
Issue: Whether ALJs have absolute immunity and independence.
Holding: The Court held ALJs have qualified immunity but not absolute immunity like Article III judges.
Significance:
Affirmed ALJ independence in adjudicatory functions.
Allowed some accountability but protects ALJs from undue interference.
Supports idea ALJs need some removal protection to maintain impartiality.
5. United States v. Fausto (1997)
Facts: Issue concerned removal and employment protections of federal employees.
Holding: The Court held that certain federal employee protections do not extend to ALJs.
Significance: Implied ALJs have a special status distinct from general federal employees.
Implication: ALJ removal protections are unique and not absolute.
6. SEC v. Rajaratnam (2011) (Relevant for Removal & Independence)
Facts: While primarily a securities case, it also touched on SEC ALJ removal power.
Issue: Whether SEC ALJs are sufficiently independent.
Outcome: Indirectly pointed toward concerns about agency control over ALJs.
Significance: Highlighted importance of ALJ independence for fair enforcement.
Statutory Framework
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Civil Service Reform Act provide some protections:
ALJs generally can only be removed for “good cause.”
Removal typically requires a formal process.
Recent debates question if these protections violate separation of powers by limiting executive removal authority.
Summary Table: ALJ Removal and Independence Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morrison v. Olson | 1988 | Removal protection for inferior officers | Partial insulation from removal constitutional |
| Free Enterprise Fund | 2010 | Limits on dual removal protections | Excessive removal insulation unconstitutional |
| Lucia v. SEC | 2018 | Appointment and status of ALJs | ALJs are inferior officers, require proper appointment |
| Butz v. Economou | 1978 | ALJ immunity and independence | Qualified immunity; supports ALJ independence |
| United States v. Fausto | 1997 | Federal employee protections for ALJs | ALJs have unique status, not ordinary employees |
Conclusion
ALJs occupy a special constitutional and statutory position as “inferior officers” with protections enhancing their independence.
Removal protections are crucial for impartiality but must be balanced against executive control to avoid constitutional conflicts.
Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Lucia) emphasize the importance of proper appointment and independence.
However, cases like Free Enterprise Fund warn against excessive insulation that could undermine accountability.
The debate continues on the optimal balance between ALJ independence and removal by agency heads or the President.
RELATED Blog
0 comments