1 / 8

Agency authority to adjudicate – constitutional test under Schor :

Agency authority to adjudicate – constitutional test under Schor :. Does agency adjudication “impermissibly threaten the institutional integrity of the judicial branch”?

carly-harvey
Download Presentation

Agency authority to adjudicate – constitutional test under Schor :

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agency authority to adjudicate – constitutional test under Schor: • Does agency adjudication “impermissibly threaten the institutional integrity of the judicial branch”? • Don’t want transfers of power away from Art. III courts in ways that emasculates them and undermines their role in separation of powers • How to give content to this notion? Another pragmatic test. Factors to consider: • Are “essential attributes” of judicial power reserved to Article III courts? Does the agency exercise the “range of jurisdiction and powers normally vested in Article III courts”? • What are the origins & importance of the right to be adjudicated? • What concerns drove Congress to depart from Article III requirements?

  2. Bottom line re Schor • Schor is one of several cases moving away from Crowell’s rigid public vs. private distinction and toward a more pragmatic approach to agency adjudication. • Schor has its problems, particularly that it uses an amorphous and unpredictable balancing test to determine whether judicial power has been “intruded upon.” • When doing that balancing keep in mind the purposes of Article III – (1) freedom from bias in adjudications and (2) preservation of an independent judiciary that serves as a check on other branches. • If those purposes seem undermined when weighing the Schorfactors, question the constitutionality of agency adjudicative authority at issue.

  3. Procedural Due Process – The Due Process Clauses • 5th Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty & property without due process of law. • 14th Amendment: No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. • When do the due process clauses apply to agency actions? • Bi-Metallic/Londoner: • Quasi-legislative actions do not implicate the due process clauses. BUT quasi-judicial actions do implicate the due process clauses and require heightened procedures. • What is an “adjudication” for due process purposes? • Involve a “relatively small number of persons” who are “exceptionally affected, in each case, upon individual grounds.”

  4. Quasi-judicial agency actions violate the due process clause only if they involve the following: • Deprivation • By the Government • Of a Person’s • Life, Liberty or Property • Without Due Process of Law

  5. Goldberg v. Kelly – preliminary issues • Facts:Plaintiffs received AFDC benefits. State & city of New York changed its law so that plaintiffs’ benefits were terminated or about to be terminated. Plaintiffs claimed that this change in the law violated due process. • Is this an adjudication in the constitutional sense? • Yes - although involves statutory change in eligibility, decisions to terminate based on new criteria will be individualized & people are contesting termination under those procedures • Is it a deprivation by the government of a personal interest? • Yes – pretty obviously • Are AFDC benefits “life, liberty or property?” • Yes – because everyone agrees on this • Note SCT’s rejection of benefits as a “privilege”

  6. What process were the Goldberg plaintiffs given? • Discussion of eligibility for benefits with caseworker • Notice of termination – w/ reasons and at least 7 days prior • Appeal to a superior agency officer via written statement • Written letter confirming the termination of benefits • POST-termination fairness hearing (formalish in nature) • Why wasn’t this “process” adequate under the 14thAmdt? • Although it did provide sufficient notice, it did not provide AFDC beneficiaries subject to termination with a sufficient pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard.

  7. What process did the Goldberg Court require in order to satisfy the 14th Amendment? • Timely/adequate notice of termination with reasons • Effective opportunity to participate in hearing prior to termination • Presentation of evidence/confrontation of witnesses and adverse evidence • Personal appearance/oral presentation • Right to counsel/other representative if desired • Neutral decision-maker • Statement of decision and evidence/reasons relied upon (doesn’t need to be formal findings) • Right of appeal

  8. Why does Goldberg require such significant procedural protections? • Does the agency/government have no countervailing interest here? • SCT clearly thinks the gov’t has an interest in “conserving fiscal & administrative resources” • Why isn’t that interest enough? • Because government’s interest is outweighed by the importance of the interest in providing welfare benefits • Note the beginnings of a balancing framework for determining what kind of process is due w/ deprivations: Government interest vs. individual interest

More Related