Admin Law “Adjudication”

Difference is that formal adjudication cannot rely on expertise outside the record

Decisions shall include agency's statement of findings and conclusions

If NO- APA §554, 556, and 557 do not apply
Look to agency's organic statute next to determine if certain procedures are required

Sections 554, 556, 557, and 558 create a process that resembles a civil trial. However, special accommodations can be made for initial licensing decisions that move away from the trial model

1) routine character of most initial licensing decisions
2) need for unusually full engagement of agency expert staff
3) improbable that license disputes will demand trial format
4) likelihood that issues that affect the license applicant's particular interests also affect a wide range of community interests, giving the dispute a polycentric character

1) They assure fairness and balance by requiring appropriate notice, prohibiting ex parte comm., etc.
2) They protect the actual and perceived legitimacy of the agency's decision by assuring an independent decision-maker
3) Provide the ALJ and agency with a variety of tools with which to manage the proceeding

Key: One of the central differences between an on-the-record proceeding and informal rulemaking or adjudication is that in formal adjudication agencies cannot rely on expertise outside the record

Agency decisions shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record

Rule: three issues with regard to notice
1) whether notice may be taken at all
2) whether warning must be given before notice is taken
3) whether rebuttal evidence must be allowed against the proposition of which notice is taken

Can preside over initial hearings and issue initial findings and decisions
- Two primary Duties:
1) preside over the taking of evidence at agency hearings and act as fact finders at proceedings
2) act as decision-maker

Rule to whether §554(d) violated: if person sufficiently involved with case to be apprised of ex parte information, he may not participate in the case
- no financial interest either
- mere exposure to investigatory stage is not enough (presumption of good face) (Central Platte v. Wyoming)

Facts: improper contact btw FLRA member and well known labor leader
- 3 Features of prohibition on ex parte communications in agency adjudication are relevant to case:
1) §557(d) applies only to ex parte comm. to or from "interested person"
2) "ex parte: can be oral/written not on the public record to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but not including request for status reports on any matter or proceeding
3) statute explicitly prohibits comm. relevant to the merits of the proceeding

1) disclosure of comm. content
2) violating party show cause why claim/interest in proceeding should not be dismissed/denied bc of the comm.