Administrative law judge
An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.[1]
"ALJ" redirects here. For other uses, see ALJ (disambiguation).
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.
Authority and review of federal ALJs[edit]
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.[2][5]
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 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.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#0__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#0__subtitleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#7__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Central panels[edit]
Administrative law judges may be employed by a "central panel" organization, which provides the judges with independence from agencies.[6] The California Administrative Procedure Act created an early central panel in 1945, and it served as a model for other states.[6] By 2015, over half of states had created such panels.[7]
Case law[edit]
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 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.[13] In a pending case argued in November 2023 before the U.S. Supreme Court, SEC v. Jarkesy questions whether the use of ALJ factfinding as a replacement for a jury trial violates the Seventh Amendment and the Nondelegation doctrine.[14] While Lucia and Jarkesy are 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 asserted similar challenges to the National Labor Relations Board's use of ALJs.[15]
State ALJs[edit]
Most U.S. states 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.[8] In some agencies, ALJs dress like lawyers in 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 judges, are referred to as "Honorable" and "Your Honor", work in private chambers, hold hearings in special "hearing rooms" that look like small courtrooms, and have court clerks who swear in witnesses.[9][10] State ALJs can be generalists or specialize in specific fields of law, such as tax law.[11]
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#3__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#3__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#2__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#2__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Professional organizations[edit]
Professional organizations that represent federal ALJs include the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference,[12] 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.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__heading--0DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__description--0DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__heading--1DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__description--1DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#4__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#4__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#5__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#6__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#6__descriptionDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#7__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
Most of the agencies below have only a few dozen ALJs.[20] 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.[21]
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.
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#8__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#8__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__titleDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__subtextDEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--0DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--1DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--2DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--3DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--4DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--5DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--6DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--7DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--8DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--9DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--10DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--11DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--12DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--13DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
$_$_$DEEZ_NUTS#1__answer--14DEEZ_NUTS$_$_$
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.