80 likes | 214 Views
Agency authority to adjudicate – constitutional test under Schor :. Does agency adjudication “impermissibly threaten the institutional integrity of the judicial branch”?
E N D
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?
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.
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.”
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
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”
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.
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
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