Administrative Law Question Forum
-
Kirkhor23
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:57 am
Administrative Law Question
Does an agency have to disclose all critical facts to the parties in an informal adjudication? I know in rulemaking an agency must disclose all critical facts relied upon so that interested parties may have an opportunity to participate under Section 553(c), but is the same true for an informal adjudication?
-
encore1101
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am
Re: Administrative Law Question
it's been a few years since admin law, so i'm going to copy+paste notes from my outline:
For judicial review:
1. Informal Adjudication
a. “Arbitrary and capricious” standard used for informal adjudication. Decision maker may be required to justify his decisions by statute, if no substantial explanation is given. Failure to do so would result in court ordering explanation. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
b. In some discretionary decisions (such as immigration), the agency must indicate how it weighed the relevant factors, so a reviewing court can determine if there was an abuse of discretion. Prado v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
i. Court vacated decision of ALJ and reviewing board to deport immigrant who had been convicted of heroin possession, because the agency did not explain why the many “outstanding equities” found in Yepes-Prado’s favor was outweighed by the one conviction.
As between the parties:
i. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
1. Ex parte communication is not a per se grounds for removal, but “disclosure is necessary to prevent the appearance of impropriety from secret communications . . .[and] as an instrument of fair decisionmaking.”
2. By itself, will not void the agency decision.
3. Remedies for ex parte communications:
a. Disclosure of contents;
b. Violating party must show cause why claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed.
ii. Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
1. Objective test for the content of ex parte communication.
a. “Whether the communications so likely prejudiced the deciding official that the proceeding should be void.”
For judicial review:
1. Informal Adjudication
a. “Arbitrary and capricious” standard used for informal adjudication. Decision maker may be required to justify his decisions by statute, if no substantial explanation is given. Failure to do so would result in court ordering explanation. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
b. In some discretionary decisions (such as immigration), the agency must indicate how it weighed the relevant factors, so a reviewing court can determine if there was an abuse of discretion. Prado v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
i. Court vacated decision of ALJ and reviewing board to deport immigrant who had been convicted of heroin possession, because the agency did not explain why the many “outstanding equities” found in Yepes-Prado’s favor was outweighed by the one conviction.
As between the parties:
i. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
1. Ex parte communication is not a per se grounds for removal, but “disclosure is necessary to prevent the appearance of impropriety from secret communications . . .[and] as an instrument of fair decisionmaking.”
2. By itself, will not void the agency decision.
3. Remedies for ex parte communications:
a. Disclosure of contents;
b. Violating party must show cause why claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed.
ii. Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
1. Objective test for the content of ex parte communication.
a. “Whether the communications so likely prejudiced the deciding official that the proceeding should be void.”
