Research On Administrative Law Judges Of The United States

The Article of Research on Administrative Law Judges of the United States (hereinafter referred to as"the Article") aims to conduct deep study and discussion on some important questions of Administrative Law Judges (hereinafter referred to as"the ALJs") of the United States in order to introduce the ALJs system as correct and complete as possible and analyze the historical background and academic reasons of its production and development. The Article is constituted of the foreword and the text of five chapters including the development of ALJs, the adjudication which the ALJs preside over, the independence of ALJs, the Central Panel movement of ALJs and use for reference in China. The Article arranges the contents in the order of historical development, present situations, federal and states from the first chapter to the fourth chapter; then, based on the analysis of four chapters, after discussing the problems in China, the Article makes conclusion and gives some suggestions in the last chapter.In the first Chapter of"Historical Development of the ALJs", the Article reviews the appearance of the hearing officers in the independent regulatory agencies and its legal establishment in APA in 1946. The ALJs system is the compromise production of different arguments during the legislation process of APA. Although the independent regulatory agencies can exist, the procedure of its adjudication must be reformed. Thus the ALJs are relatively independent from the agencies. It means the separate agencies have the authority of selection, removal, compensation and evaluation of ALJs instead of the hearing agencies. From the academic perspectives, the ALJs system reflects the requirement of Natural Justice Principle and Due Process. The Article also gives a brief introduction for the development of ALJs from 1940's to 1970's. Then the Article illustrates some important changes since 1970's, such as the decline of regulatory adjudication due to the deregulation, booming of the benefit adjudication, the application of ADR in ALJs'formal adjudication and the Central Panel movement in over twenty states etc.In the second chapter of"The Adjudication which the ALJs Preside over", the Article conducts research logically on the adjudication power of the agencies, the influence of Due Process for the formal hearing which ALJs preside over, the provisions of APA for the formal adjudication and so on.The Article introduces the legal disputes on the delegation of adjudication power to the agencies. The Supreme Court once denied the delegation of adjudication power to the agencies in civil disputes using the standard of public rights and private rights. Later the Court abandoned the old standard and argued the delegation did not violate the constitution only if it accepts the judicial review.The Article mainly discusses the formal adjudication of APA. The Article conducts research in the logical order of Due Process, APA, the adjudication, the formal adjudication and the ALJs (at the same time, the informal adjudication and the Non-ALJs). The Article introduces some important cases of Due Process as well as the questions whether Due Process applies, when it applies and what type of procedure applies. The famous Goldenberg v. Kelly case is the culmination of Due Process which requires trial type hearing. Mathews v. Eldridge case not only presented the Cost-Benefit Analysis method but also discussed the timing of Due Process, which is the question of pre-decisional hearing or post-decisional hearing. So the Article found that the hearing in American adjudication includes, in China, the hearing before making administrative decisions, such as administrative penalty, and the hearing procedure in Administrative Reconsideration. Then the Article introduces the distinction between the adjudication and the rulemaking, the difference between the formal adjudication and the informal adjudication, the application of formal adjudication and the types of disputes in the formal adjudication. Meanwhile, the Article also briefly introduces the procedure and the application of the informal adjudication. At last, the Article compares the ALJs with other hearing officers including Administrative Judges (AJ) who preside over the informal adjudication.In the third chapter of"The Independence of ALJs", the Article introduces the principle of separation of function, the role of ALJs in the process of the adjudication and the concrete system of ALJs.Concerning the separation of function, the Article mainly involves the questions that the consolidation of the function of adjudication, investigation and prosecution in the administrative agencies is prohibited, the prosecutor and the adjudicator can not have the relationship of supervision, the ALJs shall not get advice from other officers except the appeal board or the agency head and also shall not perform the inconsistent duties etc.As to the role of the ALJs in the process of the formal adjudication, the Article discusses their concrete power in the adjudication, the relationship with the appeal board and some related questions about judicial review. The ALJs have the similar power as the judges in the court including administering oaths and affirmations, issuing subpoenas authorized by law, taking depositions of proof and receiving relevant evidence, holding conference, making decision for procedure affairs and controlling the whole hearing process etc. The main function of the ALJs in the formal adjudication is to make independent and objective fact-finding and the agency takes charge of policy control. So the ALJs make the initial decision or recommended decision after the hearing and the agency makes the final decision. If not be applealed, the initial decision is the final dicision of the agency. For many agencies established the appeal review offices, the appeal boards review the ALJs'decision under the request of the regulated person or determine to review the ALJs'decision with its discretion and make the final decision which is just the final decision of the agency. The Article also introduces the organization structure of the appeal board, the review procedure and the principle of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.In the judicial review part, the Article analyzes the reasons of some important questions including the court applies the standard of substantial evidence when reviewing the facts, the initial decision of ALJs shall be submitted as the part of the whole record to the court, and when the agency and the ALJs have different opinions on the credibility of the witness, the court ordinarily adopts the ALJs'judgment.At last, the Article introduces the concrete system of ALJs including the selection, removal, discipline and management etc. According to the APA, Civil Service Commission had the authority of supervision and management of selection of ALJs. But due to the failure of the initial selection of ALJs, at present, Office of Personal Management (OPM) takes charge of the selection of ALJs and Merit Systems Protection Board (hereinafter referred to as"MSPB") take charge of the compensation, discipline and removal. An ALJ may be removed only for good cause after opportunity of hearing before the MSPB in order to safeguard the ALJs make initial decision without control of the agency, which can be regarded as the key of the formal adjudication.In the fourth chapter of"The Central Panel Movement of the ALJs", the Article introduces the debates about the independence movement of ALJs, the experience of the central panel at the state level and related problems, and the future of the central panel movement in the federal government and the states. In those states that adopt central panel, there is an administrative hearing office. The ALJs are appointed and managed by the hearing office, but serve for different agencies, presiding over the hearing and making recommended decision. The Article also involves the argument of ALJs finality. Central Panel movement is successful, so it will possibly continue to enlarge its application at the state level. In the fifth chapter of"Use for Reference in China", the Article begins the conclusion from the function of hearing in the adjudication including protection of citizens'rights, clarification of the facts and prevention and solution of administrative disputes. The Article concludes that in the adjudication procedure of the United States the government actually interferes with the administrative disputes as early as possible, so the administrative agencies are the major force to solve the administrative disputes, which also lay a good foundation for the judicial review. Finally the Article suggests that China should take the self-solution of administrative disputes by the agencies as the direction of improving administrative disputes resolution mechanism, pay more attention to the function of hearing in the decision making, strengthen the Administrative Hearing mechanism and reform the Administrative Reconsideration mechanism. As to the Administrative Reconsideration, it is necessary to safeguard the independence of reconsideration offices, cultivate the professional administrative reconsideration officers, add hearing procedure in Administrative Reconsideration, gradually conduct experiments in different areas and local governments and make efforts to realize the administrative courts in the future.