Editing Administrative law judge

{{Short description|Judge and trier of fact}}
{{Redirect|ALJ}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{More citations needed|date=July 2020}}
{{Primary sources|date=July 2020}}
}}
{{US administrative law}}
An '''administrative law judge''' ('''ALJ''') in the [[United States]] is a [[judge]] and [[trier of fact]] who both presides over [[trial (law)|trials]] and adjudicates claims or disputes involving [[administrative law]], thus involving administrative units of the executive branch of government. ALJs can administer [[oath]]s, take [[testimony]], rule on questions of [[evidence (law)|evidence]], and make factual and legal determinations.<ref name="Barnett">{{cite journal |last1=Barnett |first1=Kent |author1-link=Kent Barnett |title=Resolving the ALJ Quandary |journal=Vanderbilt Law Review |date=April 2013 |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=797–865 |url=https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=vlr |access-date=29 December 2020}}</ref> 

In the United States, the [[United States Supreme Court]] has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to that of an [[Article III judge]]. An ALJ's powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge, as ALJs may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions.

Depending upon the agency's jurisdiction, proceedings may have complex multi-party adjudication, as is the case with the  [[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]], or simplified and less formal procedures, as is the case with the [[Social Security Administration]].

== Federal appointment and tenure ==
The [[Administrative Procedure Act (United States)|Administrative Procedure Act of 1946]] (APA) requires that federal ALJs be appointed based on scores achieved in a comprehensive testing procedure, including a four-hour written examination and an oral examination before a panel that includes an [[United States Office of Personnel Management|Office of Personnel Management]] representative, an [[American Bar Association]] representative, and a sitting federal ALJ. 

In American [[administrative law]], ALJs are Article I judges under the [[U.S. Constitution]]. As such, they do not exercise full judicial power, essentially, the power over life, liberty, and property. Article I (legislative) judges and courts are not constrained to rendering opinions for only a "case or controversy" before them and may render advisory opinions on a purely prospective basis, such as, ''e.g.'', Congressional reference cases assigned to the [[United States Court of Federal Claims|Court of Federal Claims]]. Agency ALJs do not have the power to offer such advisory opinions, as it would be in violation of the power afforded them under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §557. Unlike the agency, ALJs are not policy or rule makers.

ALJs are generally considered to be part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, but the APA is designed to guarantee the decisional independence of ALJs. They have [[absolute immunity]] from liability for their judicial acts and are triers of fact "insulated from political influence".{{Citation needed|date=February 2013}} Federal administrative law judges are not responsible to, or subject to, the supervision or direction of employees or agents of the federal agency engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecution functions for the agency. ''Ex parte'' communications are prohibited. ALJs are exempt from performance ratings, evaluation, and bonuses. 5 CFR 930.206. Agency officials may not interfere with their decision-making, and administrative law judges may be discharged only for good cause based upon a complaint filed by the agency with the [[Merit Systems Protection Board]] (MSPB) established and determined after an APA hearing on the record before an MSPB ALJ.<ref name=Butz>''[[Butz v. Economou]]'', 438 U.S. 478, 514 [1978]</ref> Only ALJs receive these statutory protections; "hearing officers" or "trial examiners", with delegated hearing functions, are not similarly protected by the APA.

In ''[[Lucia v. SEC]]'', decided in June 2018, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held that ALJs are Inferior Officers within the meaning of the [[Appointments Clause]] of the United States Constitution.<ref name="ap decision">{{cite web | url = https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/apxsupreme-court-sides-with-buckets-of-money-financier/ | title = Supreme Court sides with 'Buckets of Money' financier | date=  June 21, 2018 | access-date = June 21, 2018 | publisher = [[Associated Press]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1= Skowronek | first1= Stephen | last2= Dearborn | first2= John A. | last3= King | first3 = Desmond | name-list-style= amp | url= https://global.oup.com/academic/product/phantoms-of-a-beleaguered-republic-9780197543085?cc=us&lang=en& | title= Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic: The Deep State and the Unitary Executive | publisher= Oxford University Press | year= 2021 | pages= 153–160| isbn= 978-0-19-754308-5 }}</ref> This means that they must be appointed by the president or by heads of departments (but without also requiring Senate [[advice and consent]], unless Congress amends the law to require that).

=== Attorney Advisors ===
ALJs usually hire Attorney Advisors, who serve a role similar to [[Law clerk#United States|judicial law clerks]] of [[Article III judges]]. For example, Attorney Advisors assist the ALJs with research, writing, drafting of opinions and orders, and assisting with the administration of hearings and other trial-like adjudications. Furthermore, Attorney Advisors usually have practiced as lawyers in the particular field which the ALJ possesses expertise in.

== Authority and review of federal ALJs ==
The [[United States Supreme Court]] has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to that of an Article III judge. An ALJ's powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge: an ALJ may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions. ALJs are limited as they have no power to sanction unless a statute provides such a power. Instead, the ALJ may refer a matter to an Article III Court to seek enforcement or sanctions. The process of agency adjudication is currently structured so as to assure that ALJs exercise independent judgment on the evidence before them, free from pressures by the parties or other officials within the agency.<ref name=Butz/><ref>''Federal Maritime Commission v. S.C. State Ports Authority'', 535 U.S. 743, 756 (2002)</ref>

The procedure for reviewing an ALJ's decision varies depending upon the agency. Agencies generally have an internal appellate body, with some agencies having a [[Cabinet Secretary#United States|Cabinet secretary]] decide the final internal appeals. Moreover, after the internal agency appeals have been exhausted, a party may have the right to file an appeal in the state or federal courts. Relevant statutes usually require a party to exhaust all administrative appeals before they are allowed to sue an agency in court.

== Central panels ==
Administrative law judges may be employed by a "central panel" organization, which provides the judges with independence from agencies.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Allen|first=Hoberg|date=1994|title=Administrative Hearings: State Central Panels in the 1990s|url=https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol14/iss1/5/|journal=Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary|language=en|volume=14|issue=1|issn=0735-0821}}</ref> The [[California Administrative Procedure Act]] created an early central panel in 1945, and it served as a model for other states.<ref name=":0" /> By 2015, over half of states had created such panels.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.judges.org/alj-central-panels-how-is-it-going-out-there/|title=ALJ Central Panels: How is it Going Out There? {{!}} The National Judicial College|website=www.judges.org|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161030134405/https://www.judges.org/alj-central-panels-how-is-it-going-out-there/|archive-date=2016-10-30|url-status=live|access-date=2018-11-24}}</ref>

== State ALJs ==
Most [[U.S. state]]s have a [[statute]] modeled after the APA. In some states, such as [[New Jersey]], the state law is also known as the Administrative Procedure Act.

Unlike federal ALJs, whose powers are guaranteed by federal statute, state ALJs have widely varying power and prestige. In some state law contexts, ALJs have almost no power; their decisions are accorded practically no deference and become, in effect, recommendations. In some cities, ALJs are at-will employees of the agency, making their decisional independence potentially questionable.<ref>Ackman, Dan. [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/nyregionopinions/12CIackman.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FOrganizations%2FC%2FCharter%20Revision%20Commission "The Price of Justice"]. ''New York Times'', Feb. 12, 2006</ref> In some agencies, ALJs dress like [[lawyer]]s in [[Suit (clothing)|business suits]], share offices, and hold hearings in ordinary conference rooms. In other agencies (especially certain offices of the Division of Workers' Compensation of the [[California Department of Industrial Relations]]), ALJs wear robes like Article III [[judge]]s, are referred to as "Honorable" and "Your Honor", work in private chambers, hold hearings in special "hearing rooms" that look like small [[courtroom]]s, and have court clerks who swear in witnesses.<ref name="Klunder">{{cite news |last1=Klunder |first1=Jan |title=Quest for Respect: Compensation Judges Win Right to Put On Robes |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-14-me-3867-story.html |access-date=29 December 2020 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=July 14, 1987}}</ref><ref name="Pace_Pages_634_637">{{cite book |last1=Pace |first1=Nicholas M. |last2=Reville |first2=Robert T. |last3=Galway |first3=Lionel |last4=Geller |first4=Amanda B. |last5=Hayden |first5=Orla |last6=Hill |first6=Laural A. |last7=Mardesich |first7=Christopher |last8=Neuhauser |first8=Frank W. |last9=Polich |first9=Suzanne |last10=Yeom |first10=Jane |last11=Zakaras |first11=Laura |title=Improving Dispute Resolution for California's Injured Workers |date=2003 |publisher=RAND Institute for Civil Justice |location=Santa Monica |pages=634–637 |url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1425.pdf |access-date=29 December 2020}}</ref> State ALJs can be generalists or specialize in specific fields of law, such as tax law.<ref>Elizabeth Buroker Coffin, The Case for A State Tax Court, 8 St. & Loc. Tax Law. 63 (2003)</ref>

== Professional organizations ==
Professional organizations that represent federal ALJs include the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference,<ref>[http://www.faljc.org Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference]</ref> the Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents only Social Security ALJs, and the Forum of United States Administrative Law judges. Professional organizations that include both state and federal ALJs include the [[National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary]], the [[ABA National Conference of Administrative Law Judiciary]], and the [[National Association of Hearing Officials]].

== Case law ==
The constitutionality of the use of ALJs by executive branch administrative agencies has become the subject of frequent challenges in judicial branch courts during the early 21st century. In ''[[Lucia v. SEC]]'' (2018), the [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that ALJs are officers of the United States and thus subject to the [[Appointments Clause]] of the Constitution—requiring their appointment to be made by the President or an otherwise delegated officer—but they do not require Senate confirmation as they are merely considered "inferior" officers.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/sec-judges-supreme-court.html | title = S.E.C. Judges Were Appointed Unlawfully, Justices Rule |first = Adam | last=  Liptak | date  =June 21, 2018 | accessdate = June 23, 2018 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref> In 2023, the case of ''[[SEC v. Jarkesy]]'' raised the issues of whether the use of ALJ factfinding as a replacement for a [[jury trial]] violates the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]] and the [[nondelegation doctrine]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/18/business/economy-news-stocks-inflation#sec-jury-trial-judge | title =  A federal appeals court says the S.E.C.'s use of an in-house judge violates defendants' rights. | first = Matthew | last = Goldstein | date = May 18, 2022 | accessdate = May 19, 2022 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>  In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that the SEC's use of ALJs in administrative proceedings for regulatory violations analogous to [[securities fraud]] violates the Seventh Amendment because there was a right to a jury trial in fraud actions at common law, then refused to decide any other issues.<ref name="20240627NYTSavageLiptak">{{cite news |author1=Charlie Savage and Adam Liptak |title=Again Curbing Regulatory Agencies, Supreme Court Rejects S.E.C.’s Tribunals |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-sec-tribunal.html |access-date=July 12, 2024 |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709010354/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-sec-tribunal.html |archive-date=July 9, 2024|date=June 27, 2024}}</ref>

While ''Lucia'' and ''Jarkesy'' were specifically focused on the SEC, there are other pending cases in lower-level courts (such as those brought by [[SpaceX]] and [[Trader Joe's]]) which brought similar challenges to the [[National Labor Relations Board]]'s use of ALJs.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://fortune.com/2024/01/27/elon-musk-spacex-right-nlrb-unconstitutional-says-trader-joes/ | title = Elon Musk and SpaceX are right about the National Labor Relations Board being unconstitutional, argues Trader Joe’s | first = Josh | last = Eidelson | date = January 27, 2024 | accessdate = January 27, 2024 | work = [[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] }}</ref> At least one court has ruled that the challenges would "neuter" the [[National Labor Relations Act]] and are unlikely to succeed, and that the [[National Labor Relations Board]]'s use of ALJs is likely constitutional.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wiessner |first1=Daniel |title=US judge rejects medical center's bid to 'neuter' NLRB |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-rejects-medical-centers-bid-neuter-nlrb-2024-09-16/ |access-date=16 September 2024 |agency=Reuters |date=16 September 2024}}</ref>

== International comparisons ==

The United States does not have [[administrative courts]] in the judicial branch.<ref name="Von_Mehren_Page_4">{{cite book |last1=von Mehren |first1=Arthur T. |last2=Murray |first2=Peter L. |author1-link=Arthur Taylor von Mehren |author2-link=Peter L. Murray |title=Law in the United States |date=2007 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9781139462198 |page=4 |edition=2nd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9tpJlKdqVTsC&pg=PA4}}</ref><ref name="Farnsworth_Page_170">{{cite book |last1=Farnsworth |first1=E. Allan |author-link1=E. Allan Farnsworth |editor1-last=Sheppard |editor1-first=Steve |editor1-link=Stephen M. Sheppard |title=An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780199733101 |page=170 |edition=4th |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eOFMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 |access-date=November 17, 2020}}</ref>  In contrast, in the United Kingdom the [[Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007]] recognises legally qualified members of the national system of administrative law tribunals as members of the [[judiciary of the United Kingdom]] who are guaranteed [[judicial independence]].<ref>Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s.1, [[Constitutional Reform Act 2005]], s.3</ref>

ALJs cannot be recognized as members of the judicial branch of government (without first completely ejecting them from their home agencies in the executive branch), because to do so would violate the bedrock principle of [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|separation of powers as embodied in the U.S. Constitution]].<ref name="Sunstein_Page_83">{{cite book |last1=Sunstein |first1=Cass R. |last2=Vermeule |first2=Adrian |author1-link=Cass Sunstein |author2-link=Adrian Vermeule |title=Law and Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State |date=2020 |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780674249813 |page=83 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k6n8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA83 |access-date=May 5, 2024}}</ref>  In a 2013 majority opinion signed by Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

{{quote|The dissent overstates when it claims that agencies exercise "legislative power" and "judicial power" ... The former is [[Vesting Clauses|vested exclusively]] in Congress ... the latter in the "one supreme Court" and "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" ... Agencies make rules ... and conduct adjudications ... and have done so since the beginning of the Republic. These activities take "legislative" and "judicial" forms, but they are exercises of—indeed, under our constitutional structure they ''must be'' exercises of—the "executive Power."<ref>''City of Arlington v. FCC'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15785238659483190922&hl=en 569 U.S. 290, 304 n.4] (2013) (emphasis in original).</ref>}}

== List of U.S. federal agencies with ALJs ==
Most of the agencies below have only a few dozen ALJs.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/#url=ALJs-by-Agency | title=ALJs by Agency | date=August 2020}}</ref> In 2013, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had by far the largest number of ALJs at over 1,400, who adjudicate over 700,000 cases each year. The average SSA hearing process occurs over a period of 373 days.<ref>{{Cite news | first=Stephen | last=Ohlemacher | title=Judges sue Social Security over 'quotas' | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/judges-social-security_n_3115363.html| newspaper=[[Florida Today]] | location=[[Melbourne, Florida]] | pages= 3A | date=April 20, 2013 }}</ref><!---soft copy source does not agree with hard copy source but is the same article--->

* [[Commodity Futures Trading Commission]]
* [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]]
* [[United States Department of Health & Human Services|Department of Health and Human Services]]/Department Appeals Board
* [[United States Department of Health & Human Services|Department of Health and Human Services]]/Office of [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] Hearings and Appeals
* [[Department of Housing and Urban Development]]
* [[United States Department of the Interior|Department of the Interior]]
* [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]/[[Executive Office for Immigration Review]]
* [[United States Department of Labor|Department of Labor]]
* [[United States Department of Transportation|Department of Transportation]]
* [[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|Department of Veterans Affairs]]
* [[Drug Enforcement Administration]]
* [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]]
* [[Federal Aviation Administration]]
* [[Federal Communications Commission]]
* [[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]]
* [[Federal Labor Relations Authority]]
* [[Federal Maritime Commission]]
* [[Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission]]
* [[Federal Reserve Board of Governors]]
* [[Federal Trade Commission]]
* [[Food and Drug Administration]]
* [[General Services Administration]]
* [[United States International Trade Commission|International Trade Commission]]
* [[United States Merit Systems Protection Board|Merit Systems Protection Board]]
* [[National Labor Relations Board]]
* [[National Transportation Safety Board]]
* [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]
* [[Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission]]
* [[Office of Financial Institution Adjudication]]
* [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|Patent and Trademark Office]]
* [[United States Coast Guard]]
* [[United States Postal Service]]
* [[Securities and Exchange Commission]]
* [[Small Business Administration]]
* [[Social Security Administration]]

Other federal agencies may request the U.S. [[Office of Personnel Management]] to lend them Administrative Law Judges from other federal agencies for a period of up to six months.

== List of state departments and agencies with ALJs ==
Some states, such as [[California]], follow the federal model of having a separate corps of ALJs attached to each agency that uses them.  Others, such as New Jersey, have consolidated all ALJs together into a single agency that holds hearings on behalf of all other state agencies. This type of state adjudicatory agency is called a "[[central panel agency]]".  Many states have a central panel agency, but the agency does not handle all the hearings for every state agency.

*[[Alabama Department of Revenue]]
*Alaska Office of Administrative Hearings
*[[California Department of Consumer Affairs]]
*[[California Department of Health Services]]
*[[California Department of Industrial Relations]]
*[[California Department of Social Services]]
*[[California Employment Development Department]]
*[[California Department of Developmental Services]]
** [https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH Office of Administrative Hearings web page]
** [https://www.dds.ca.gov/complaints/complt_fh.cfm Fair Hearings Complaint process web page]
*[[California Office of Tax Appeals]]
*[[California Public Utilities Commission]]
*[[California State Personnel Board]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spb.ca.gov/appeals/alj.aspx|title = State Personnel Board}}</ref>
*[[Colorado Office of Administrative Courts]]
*Colorado Public Utilities Commission
*[[Florida Division of Administrative Hearings]]
*[[Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings]]
*[[Illinois Human Rights Commission]]
*[[Indiana Department of Workforce Development]]
*[[Industrial Commission of Arizona]]
*[[Iowa Department of Corrections]]
*[[Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals-Division of Administrative Hearings]] (does hearings for some but not all state agencies)
*[[Iowa Workforce Development Department]]
*[[Louisiana Division of Administrative Law]]
*[[Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings]]
*[[Maryland Public Service Commission]] (hearings for public utility cases)
*[[Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation]]
*[[Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection]]
*[[Michigan State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules]]
*[[Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings]] (does hearings for some but not all state agencies)
*[[Mississippi Department of Employment Security, Office of the Governor]]
*[[New Jersey Office of Administrative Law]] (does hearings for all state agencies)
*[[New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings]] (does hearings for some but not all city agencies)
*[[New York City Department of Finance]] (hearings for parking violations)
*[[New York State Department of Environmental Conservation]]
*[[New York State Department of Labor]]
*New York State Department of Motor Vehicles [[Traffic Violations Bureau]]
*[[New York State Department of State]]
*[[New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance]] 
*Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court Commission 
*[[Pennsylvania Department of Insurance]]
*[[Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry]], Bureau of [[Workers' Compensation]]
*[[Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board]]
*[[Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission]]
*[[South Carolina Administrative Law Court]] (does hearings for all state agencies)
*[[Texas Department of Banking]]
*[[Texas Finance Commission]]
*[[Texas Health and Human Services Commission]]
*[[Railroad Commission of Texas]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=110618a Railroad Commission Appoints Dana Lewis as Director of Hearings|url=https://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/110618a-railroad-commission-appoints-dana-lewis-as-director-of-hearings/|access-date=2021-07-15|website=www.rrc.texas.gov}}</ref>
*[[Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings]] (does hearings for only some state agencies)
*[[Washington Office of Administrative Hearings]] (does hearings for all state agencies plus some local ones)
*West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board
*West Virginia Public Service Commission
*West Virginia Insurance Commission (Workers Compensation)

==See also==
*[[Federal tribunals in the United States]]
*[[Federal judiciary of the United States]]
*[[Administrative court]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.forumalj.org The Forum of United States Administrative Law Judges (FORUM)]
*[http://www.NAALJ.org National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary]
*[http://www.FALJC.org Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference]
{{law}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Administrative Law Judge}}
[[Category:Judges]]
[[Category:United States administrative law]]