IL Administrative Law

The validity of the actions and decisions of government officials. In an admin problem, the issue is: Will the agency action ssurvive judiciaal scrutiny

1) What type of administrative action is involved
2) what are the plausible grounds for judicial review
3) what are the proper scopes of review
4) did he agency use correct procedure?
5) Have all conditions on obtaining judicial review been satisfied?

SMJ
What power?
Enabling act
IL administrative procedure act
Adimistrative review law
Open Meetings Act
Discretion
Expertise
Deference
Scope of Review

Limited subject matter jx

combination of powers from legislative, executive and judicial

statute by which the legislature creates the agency, specifies its jx and objectives and grants its ppowers

Illinois Administrative Procedure Act

Administrative Review Law

Open Meetings Act

a range of free choice

Expertness. Unlike courts which have general jx, agencies are given limited subject matter jx, so that they encounter the same types of factual and technical issues over and over. With repeated exposure and experiennce comes expertness

the court, on its own, can yield to the agency's decision. Courts do not defer to every agency decision, ONLY defer if agency has expertise

mandatory minimum weight or respect which a court must give agency decision

Three categories of administrative action?
Contested case
Rulemaking

Quasi judicial: contested cases, or formal adjudicaton
Quasi executive: noncontested cases or informal adjudication
Quasi legislative: rulemaking

An adjudicatory proceeding in which the individual legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency only after an opportunity for a hearing
Some process in order for things to be fair

Right to present evidence
Knowledge of opposing evidence
Opportunity to test and rebut opposing evidence
Decision must be based solely on evidence produced at the hearing -a civil bench trial

Applies to all agencies. Both state and local agences must follow the IAPA hearing and rulemaking procedures

Rule: each agency statement of general applicability that implements, applies, interprets or prescribes law or policy -includes formation or repeal
EXCEPT: 1) states concerning internal mmanagement, so long as they do not affect private rights or procedures outside the agency; 2) declaratory rulings issued by an agency with respect to a specific set of facts and intended to apply only to those facts; 3) intra-agency memoranda; 4) prescription of standarized forms; 5) documents prepared or filed or actions taken to codify statutes

Four independent grounds:
Constitutional: did it violate the constitution?
Jurisdictional: is it within this agency's jx?
Procedural: did the agency follow procedure?
Merits: is this a good decision?

1) Identifying the scopes of review: there are 4; scope of review and leven of deference accorded the bureaucratic decision.
2) Rulemaking and other agency action
3) Meaning of limited scopes of review: substantial evidence, abuse of discretion
4) General principles governing judicial review

Scope is substituted judgment, court gives de novo deference

Scope is substituted judgment, court gives some deference

scope is substituted judgment, court gives no deference

May be limited and depends on which of the three categories of administrative action involved:
Contested case: reasonable in light of the whole record; applies th findings of fact only, other discretionary decisions such as sanctions is subject to the abuse of discretion test
Rulemaking and other agency action: arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion

To support a factual finding consists of more than a mere scintilla, but may be less than a preponderence of the evidence suth that a reasoning mind would conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion.
Court is bound to review the record and determine whether there IS substantial evidence to support the decision, order or findings and whether it is not so supported, court must set it aside

1) did agency consider any irrelevant factor
2) did agency fail to consider any relevant factor
3) did agency fail to plausibly explain any apparent inconsistency

Agency discretion
Lawfulness of agency judged by the actual chain of reasoning of decisionmaker
Explaning reasons for decision
Action unreasonably delayed
Preservation of innssues
Appeal

courts will never exercise discretion that the legislature has lawfully vested in agency. If reviewing court finds agency action illegal, it sets the action aside but does not decide the issue. Court instead remands to the agency to try again, this time exercising discretion legally

Unlike rational basis review, administrative action will NOT be upheld merely because you can concieve of some adequate justification for the decision.
Reasons actuall relied on by the agency itself MUST support the decision

Agency must explain reasons for its decision

Under IL law, delay in rendering administrative decisions will not constitute error where ther has been no material change in conditions during such delay

Issues must be preserved, exhausted

In a contested case or rulemaking, appellate courts review the decision of the agency, not of the circuit court

Contested cases and procedural due process
Noncontested cases and procedural due process
Rulemaking and procedural process

Ex Parte
Prejudgment
Standard of PROOF

An oral or written communication that is not on the public record.
Thiis is NOT allowed in IL

1) generally disqualifies decision maker only for prejudgment of specific facts in controversy; pre-formed opinion is ok
2) those who serve on administrative tribunals are presumed fair and honest but if one member of an admin body is not disinterested, his or her participation infects the action of the whole body
Other examples: 1) decisionmaker has a personal/financial stake in the claim; 2) decisionmaker has beek target of attacks by a party; 3) where decisionmaker says something about the case that would indicate bias before the trial started

Preponderance of the evidence, the traditional civil case standard

In general
Applicability of due process
What process is due

IAPA does not mandate any particular form of proceedin or fact gathering in a non-contested case. Agency organic act, agency rule, or procedural due process may mandate certain minimum procedural safeguards. If not, then the process to be used lies within the discretion of the agency, and informal, ad hoc managerial decisionmaking is permissible

Must be a life liberty or property interest at stake
Property: interest to be protected must be created by statute, common law, or even agency rule. Must satisfy any mandatory substantive predicate before taking adverse action -watch out for "for cause"
Liberty: same as con law

3-Factor balancing test
1) Court weighs Harm to the privaty party that would result from erroneous deprivation
2) governmental interest in using less formal decisionmaking procedures, includes interest in minimalizing costs
3) utility of the additional procedure
Due process rights are determined by the generality of similar cases

Illinois Rulemaking Procedures
Required procedures: notice to the public
What's in the notice the the public
Emergency exception
Effect of rules on judiciary
IL open meetings law

Notice to the public
Emergency excetption

1)Timing:
2) Contents of notice:
3) Comment:
4) Hearings:
5) notice to JCAR:
6) Filing:

must not adopt a rule until after 45 days after notice is published in the IL register

must have a) text of the proposed rule, b) any applicable statutory citations, c) a description of the issues involved, d) descriptions of research reports used in developing the rule and, e) time, place and manner for public comment on the proposed rule

agency will accept and consider any data, views, arguments and comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons

agency must hold a public hearing if 1) hearing would facilitate public comment on proposal or 2) agency recieves sufficient number of requests for a hearing

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules -most provide notice to these guys, they monitor and investigate agency regulations, they could object or suggest changes to the proposed rule

agency may file the final rule with the secretary of state within 1 year of the first notice period

Emergency Rules may be filed without notice or a hearing. Valid for no more than 150 days
No emergency rule may be adopted more than once in any 24-mo period
Emergency: the existence of any situation that the agency finds reasonably constitutes a threat to the public interest, safety or welfare

legislative rules
Interpretive rules

A legislative rule, if valid, has the force and effect of law, meaning that it is treated like a statute and is therefore binding on the courts

Substituted judgment standard because:
1) Not an exercise of delegated statute-writing power and
2) courts are the final expositors of statutes. Interpretive rule is treated as merely agency's advisory views on how to read its original act

Act requires public notice and access to meetings of most state and local public bodies if a quorum of the members is present
Closed meetings: where an agency will discuss specific confidential subjects listed in the open meetings act. To close, an agency must vote at an open meeting and then give notice to the public, which must state the exception being invoked

Commencing the action in circuit court
Service of summons
Pleadings
Timing of judicial action

An action to review a final administrative decision is commenced by filing a complanit and issuing a summns within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision was served on the party affected by it
Proper Parties
Time Requirements
Service of decision

1) Under ARL, agency and all parties of the record to the proceedings before it are to be included as defendants. If the court determines during review that a required party, including the agency itself, was not made a defendant, must grant plaintiff 35 days to name and serve missing party
2) Agency heads or directors serving in their official capacity is sufficient for this
3) Zoning board decisions: for more than 500,000 people include only zoming board of appeals or hearing officer and applicabts before the board or officer
4) plaintiff also notify anyone who testified before or submitted written instruments to the board in the decision being appealed

Complaint: 35 day period for filing a complaint is a jx requirement, and cannot be waived
Issuing summons: 35 day requirement is not jx, so can be relaxed

If the statute governing the administrative agency does not specify how a decision is to be served, decision will be deemed to have been served when it is either personally delivered or deposited in the mail

1) must serve on the agency by regeistered or certified mail
2) Agency must be seved at its mail office AND mail a copy of the summons to any other defendats at their last known addresses
3) Good faith exception: 35 day requirement can be relaxed when litigant makes a good faith effort to issue summons within tha period. Litigant MUST make an affirmative step in order to invoke this thou -can't just sit on your tushie until 35 days are up

Only pleadings that may be filed are the plaintiff's complaint and the agency's answer

Exhaustion of administrative remedies
Ripeness

Private parties, before seeking court intervention, must give agency fullest possible opportunity to correct its own mistakes
You MUST use all the process that the agency gives you
Rulemaking: in a declaratory judgment action challenging the validityy of an agency, exhaustion not required. a) if agency could not provide an adequate remedy; b) if only issues presented involve questions of law; c) exhaustion may cause irreparable injury

Purpose: courts may delay judicial review further if they think it will improve the quality of the judicial decisionmaking without undue harm to the complaining party
Usually common to rulemaking, where the adversly affected party can have immediate direct review or should instead wait until the agency can apply the rule
Balancing test: courts decide ripeness questions by balancing 1) the present fitness of the issues for judicial resolution against 2) the hardship to the parties of delaying review