Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An
October 1, 2021
Overview
Ben Harrington
Federal agencies adjudicate a wide variety of matters, from applications for public benefits to
Legislative Attorney
enforcement actions against persons who have allegedly violated federal laws. Although the

formal adjudication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establish an
Daniel J. Sheffner
adversarial, trial-type process for federal agency adjudication, the vast majority of federal agency
Legislative Attorney
adjudications deviate from this formal model. The great number and diversity of schemes that

federal agencies use to adjudicate disputes outside of the formal APA framework have, in recent
years, attracted significant scholarly attention and raised legislative issues.

The term “agency adjudication” is generally understood to mean an agency action with the force of law that resolves a claim
or dispute between specific individuals in a specific case. Adjudicative decisions can be contrasted with agency actions taken
through rulemaking, which typically are forwarding-looking actions that affect the rights of broad classes of unspecified
individuals.
Traditionally, federal agency adjudication is categorized as either formal or informal. “Formal adjudication” describes
adjudicative proceedings that are governed by the APA’s formal hearing provisions, contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557.
“Informal adjudication” is a residual term for all other adjudicative proceedings. The formal hearing provisions apply if a
statute explicitly states that they apply or explicitly requires a hearing “on the record.” Otherwise, courts often defer to
reasonable agency interpretations of whether the formal hearing provisions govern an adjudicative proceeding.
The formal hearing provisions establish detailed specifications for oral, trial-type proceedings. Parties may present evidence
and cross-examine witnesses, and the adjudicator must issue a decision with findings and conclusions. In addition, formal
adjudications must be presided over by “administrative law judges” (ALJs), a special class of adjudicators who enjoy a
unique level of independence from their employing agencies.
For informal adjudication, no uniform set of detailed statutory parameters applies. Procedural rules for informal adjudication
come mostly from program-specific sources, such as the provisions of a statute that authorizes the adjudication system in
question or, more often, agency-made rules and guidance. In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
supplies a minimum threshold for procedural protections in agency adjudications that infringe life, liberty, or property
interests. The due process analysis is flexible and does not always lead to the conclusion that an agency must provide
additional procedures. While agencies are free to craft procedures for informal adjudication consistent with authority
conferred by Congress, courts may not require additional procedures beyond those mandated by the APA, other relevant
statutes, or the Constitution.
Recent studies published by the Administrative Conference of the United States, along with other scholarship, have surveyed
and analyzed a range of informal adjudication schemes. Many informal adjudication schemes, such as Department of Justice
immigration court proceedings, are “formal-like,” in the sense that they consist of trial-type, adversarial evidentiary hearings
but are not governed by the APA’s formal hearing requirements. Other schemes, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs
system for adjudicating applications for benefits, are non-adversarial: no government counsel appears at the evidentiary
hearing, and the adjudicator must proactively develop facts and claims in the case. Still other schemes, such as the
Department of State’s process for adjudicating millions of visa applications annually, involve interviews or similar
streamlined interactions, with few procedural protections. “Formal-like” schemes typically do not raise procedural due
process issues, and the Supreme Court has upheld the use of non-adversarial schemes in benefits administration contexts. The
streamlined interview model, however, is typically constitutional only where due process does not apply or applies with
reduced force.
A small number of APA provisions apply by default to informal adjudication. The APA creates a presumption that final
agency decisions made through informal adjudication, like other types of final agency action, are subject to judicial review.
The APA also establishes “ancillary” protections—such as the right to retain counsel, to appear before the agency, and to
receive notice of the grounds for an agency’s denial of a request—that typically apply to formal and informal adjudication
alike.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 23 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 31 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
What Is Agency Adjudication? ........................................................................................................ 2
“Formal” and “Informal” Adjudications ......................................................................................... 4
Formal Adjudication .................................................................................................................. 5
Informal Adjudication ............................................................................................................... 8
Due Process and Other Sources of Adjudication Procedures .................................................... 9
Brief Survey of Informal Adjudication ........................................................................................... 11
Adversarial Trial-Type Proceedings Not Governed by Formal APA Requirements ............... 12
Non-Adversarial Evidentiary Hearings ................................................................................... 15
Non-Adversarial Interviews or Inspections ............................................................................. 20
Statutory Defaults for Informal Adjudication ................................................................................ 24
Judicial Review ....................................................................................................................... 24
5 U.S.C. § 555 ......................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 28

Congressional Research Service

link to page 8 link to page 15 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Introduction
Trial procedure in the United States traditionally follows an adversarial model: opposing parties
dispute claims and present evidence in court before a mostly passive referee (the judge) and
finder of fact (judge or jury).1 Congress adopted this adversarial model from the judiciary for
federal agency adjudication in 1946 by enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).2
Federal agencies adjudicate a wide variety of matters, from applications for public benefits to
enforcement actions against persons for alleged violations of federal law.3 The APA formal
adjudication requirements provide for adversarial proceedings in federal agency adjudication that
in many respects resemble American civil trials.4
Congress and agencies often deviate from the APA’s formal adjudication requirements, however,
for a range of reasons, including administrative convenience,5 the need to address high
caseloads,6 and the desire to craft more protective procedures for specific populations appearing
before federal agencies.7 While the APA’s formal adjudication requirements may represent the
paramount model of federal agency adjudication, they do not govern most federal agency
adjudications.8 Some of the so-called “informal” agency adjudication systems that fall outside the
reach of the APA’s formal adjudication requirements still resemble adversarial court trials.9
Others are similar to inquisitorial proceedings from the civil law tradition, in which a proactive

1 Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862 (1975) (“[T]he very premise of our adversary system of criminal justice is
that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective that the guilty be convicted and
the innocent go free.”); Paul R. Verkuil, A Study of Informal Adjudication Procedures, 43 U. CHI. L. REV. 739, 743
(1976) (“As a matter of Anglo-American culture, the historically favored system for dispute resolution is the adversary
system, where control is reserved to the litigants, and the decision maker assumes a passive role.”); Emily S. Bremer,
Reckoning with Adjudication’s Exceptionalism Norm, 69 DUKE L.J. 1749, 1761-62 (2020) [hereinafter Bremer,
Reckoning with Exceptionalism] (“Although adversarial hearings are a hallmark feature of the American legal system,
courts have held that an inquisitorial hearing in the administrative context can satisfy the Constitution’s Due Process
Clause.”).
2 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
3 See Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1763 (table of “top ten largest” federal administrative
adjudication schemes).
4 Id. §§ 554, 556-57; Christopher J. Walker & Melissa F. Wasserman, The New World of Agency Adjudication, 107
CAL. L. REV. 141, 149 (2019); see infra “Formal Adjudication.”
5 See Aaron L. Nielson, Three Wrong Turns in Agency Adjudication, 28 GEO. MASON L. REV. 657, 678 (2021) (arguing
that “regulators sometimes may be tempted to take shortcuts” and that “agencies gradually persuaded courts to grant
them greater discretion over the issue” of when formal adjudication requirements apply).
6 Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1963-64 (2020) (describing immigration legislation that
“crafted a system for weeding out patently meritless claims” through the use of “more expedited procedures”).
7 Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 440 (2011) (noting that the “solicitude of Congress for veterans is [] long
standing” and “plainly reflected” in procedural laws for the adjudication of veterans benefits that “place a thumb on the
scale in the veteran's favor”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
8 Walker & Wasserman, supra note 4, at 153 (“Despite administrative law’s fixation on APA-governed formal
adjudication, the vast majority of agency adjudications and federal regulatory actions do not involve APA-governed
formal adjudications . . . .”).
9 See infra “Adversarial Trial-Type Proceedings Not Governed by Formal APA Requirements.”
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 23 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

decision maker “is free to seek evidence and to control the nature and objectives of the inquiry.”10
Still others consist of interviews or other streamlined interactions.11
This report offers a basic primer on informal federal agency adjudication. It reviews fundamental
principles of agency adjudication and explains the APA’s formal adjudication model. It then
explores alternative types of agency adjudication that differ from the formal APA model and
assesses some constitutional considerations relevant to Congress. The report concludes by
reviewing the few procedural requirements that the APA imposes on all agency adjudications,
including informal adjudications.
What Is Agency Adjudication?
Federal agencies perform their legislatively prescribed functions in a variety of manners.12 In
particular, a proceeding that produces a federal agency action of substantive, binding effect may
take the form of a rulemaking or an adjudication.13 Many agency proceedings may be difficult to
classify precisely as either rulemaking or adjudication, but as a general matter “adjudications
resolve disputes among specific individuals in specific cases, whereas rulemaking affects the
rights of broad classes of unspecified individuals.”14 Further, adjudications impose “immediate
effect[s]” on parties in a proceeding, while rulemakings are “prospective” in nature and have “a
definitive effect on individuals only after the rule subsequently is applied.”15 Thus, the products
of rulemaking proceedings (in particular, legislative rulemaking proceedings)16 typically are

10 JOHN HENRY MERRYMAN & ROGELIO PÉREZ-PERDOMO, THE CIVIL LAW TRADITION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGAL
SYSTEMS OF WESTERN EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA 128 (3d ed. 2007); see infra “Non-Adversarial Evidentiary
Hearings.”
11 See infra “Non-Adversarial Interviews or Inspections.”
12 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10182, D.C. Circuit Rules FTC Opinion Letter Not “Final Agency Action” Subject to
Judicial Review, by Daniel J. Sheffner, at 2 (“In addition to promulgating binding regulations and orders, agencies
carry out their statutorily prescribed activities in countless other ways, including by gathering information and input
from stakeholders and the public through public hearings and other formal and informal formats; issuing non-binding
oral or written guidance detailing how they understand or interpret their statutory authority or obligations; and
determining whether and how to utilize their discretion to enforce regulations and statutes they administer.”).
13 See United States v. Fla. East Coast R. Co., 410 U.S. 224, 245 (1973) (explaining that there is “a recognized
distinction in administrative law between proceedings for the purpose of promulgating policy-type rules or standards . .
. and proceedings designed to adjudicate disputed facts in particular cases”). Under the APA, agency rules that bear the
force of law generally must be promulgated in accordance with the statute’s “informal rulemaking,” or notice-and-
comment, procedures. 5 U.S.C. § 553. However, where “rules are required by statute to be made on the record after
opportunity for an agency hearing,” an agency may issue a rule only after engaging in a trial-type, evidentiary
proceeding governed by the formal procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 557. Id. § 553(c). This is known as
“formal rulemaking.” See CRS Report R46673, Agency Rescissions of Legislative Rules, by Kate R. Bowers and Daniel
J. Sheffner, at 5. While the APA applies to rulemakings by default, Congress can impose additional or alternative
rulemaking procedures on agencies. Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 559 (providing that a “[s]ubsequent statute may . . . supersede or
modify” the APA if “it does so expressly”). Procedures, both from the APA and other sources, that govern
adjudications are discussed throughout this report. See infra, passim.
In addition to issuing rules and adjudicative orders, agencies often also perform investigations. See Appeal of FTC Line
of Business Report Litigation, 595 F.2d 685, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“The language and legislative history of the APA
suggest a classification of agency activity into three basic categories: rulemaking, adjudication and investigation.”).
The APA contains provisions applicable to agency investigations at 5 U.S.C. § 555.
14 Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 448 (9th Cir. 1994); see also MICHAEL ASIMOW & RONALD
M. LEVIN, STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 62 (3d ed. 2009) [hereinafter ASIMOW & LEVIN (writing that an
adjudication “affects specific persons” and that a rulemaking “affects a class of persons”)].
15 Yesler Terrace Cmty, 37 F.3d at 448.
16 Bowers & Sheffner, supra note 13, at 1.
Congressional Research Service

2

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

generally applicable, forward looking actions (commonly known as “regulations”) bearing the
force of law, whereas legally binding, backward looking actions determining the rights or
obligations of specific parties based on facts specific to those parties are adjudicative decisions.17
Agencies generally have flexibility to carry out their delegated responsibilities through the
exercise of both rulemaking and adjudicatory authority.18
The APA defines “adjudication” with reference to interlocking definitions of related terms.19
Taken together, in the words of one federal court of appeals, the definitions provide that “[a]n
adjudication . . . is virtually any agency action that is not rulemaking.”20 While the APA defines a
“rule” to include statements of “particular applicability,”21 courts often adhere to the
specific/general (and prospective/retroactive) dichotomy when determining if an action is an
order or rule.22
Although an action’s classification as “adjudicative” generally derives from its focus on
individualized interests, adjudications often “serve as vehicles for the formulation of agency
policies” and “generally provide a guide to action that the agency may be expected to take in

17 See Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 316 U.S. 407, 418 (1942). Note that, in some instances, an action of
particular—as opposed to general—applicability may be classified as a rule. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(4) (definition of “rule”
in the APA); see infra note 19.
18 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 (1947) (“[T]he choice made between proceeding by general rule or by
individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency.”).
19 The APA states that an adjudication is the “agency process for the formulation of an order.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(7). An
order is defined as “the whole or a part of a final disposition . . . of an agency in a matter other than rule making but
including licensing.” Id. § 551(6) (emphasis added). A “rule making” under the APA is the “agency process for
formulating, amending or repealing a rule,” and a “rule,” in turn, is “the whole or a part of an agency statement of
general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or
describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency. Id. § 551(4) (definition of “rule”), (5)
(definition of “rule making”). The APA’s definition of rule includes agency statements that do not carry the force of
law or that are procedural in nature. See Bowers & Sheffner, supra note 13, at 6, 7–9
20 Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 448 (9th Cir. 1994). That said, agencies also engage in
investigative acts, in addition to adjudications and rulemakings. See supra note 13.
21 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). See supra note 19.
22 See, e.g., Neustar, Inc. v. FCC, 857 F.3d 886, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see MICHAEL ASIMOW, ADMIN. CONF. OF THE
U.S., FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION OUTSIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 10–11 (2019)
[hereinafter ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION]; see also Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 333
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (“[R]ules generally have only ‘future effect’ while adjudications immediately bind parties by
retroactively applying law to their past actions.”).
In United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224, 244 (1973), the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he
basic distinction between rulemaking and adjudication is illustrated by” the Court’s earlier decisions in Londoner v.
Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908), and Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915). In
Londoner, the Court held that a city ordinance that assessed a particular tax against the residents of a district but that
did not allow the residents an opportunity for an oral hearing deprived the plaintiff of due process. 210 U.S. at 374,
385–86. However, in Bi-Metallic, the Court held that an order from two state boards that raised the tax value of all
taxable properties in Denver, Colorado, but which did not afford residents an opportunity for a hearing, did not violate
due process. 239 U.S. at 443, 445–46. The Bi-Metallic Court distinguished its earlier decision in Londoner by
explaining that, in the former case, a “relatively small number of persons was concerned, who were exceptionally
affected, in each case upon individual grounds.” Id. (citing Londoner, 210 U.S. at 385). These cases stand for the
traditional proposition that, while procedural due process may protect parties’ rights in certain administrative
adjudications, see infra “Due Process and Other Sources of Adjudication Procedures,” procedural due process concerns
are not present in the rulemaking context. See ASIMOW & LEVIN, supra note 14, at 62 (writing that “[p]rocedural due
process does not apply to rulemaking”); but see Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. Dep’t of Transp., 821 F.3d 19, 34 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (holding that “[b]ecause [the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008] endows Amtrak with
regulatory authority over its competitors, that delegation violates due process”).
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 14 link to page 23 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

future cases.”23 Courts, however, have determined that adjudications were actually improper rules
where they “had no immediate, concrete effect on anyone.”24 Further, that only one party is
affected by an agency’s action does not necessarily render that action an adjudication rather than
a rulemaking.25 In Anaconda Co. v. Ruckelshaus,26 for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit held that the Environmental Protection Agency was not required to provide a “trial
type adjudicatory hearing” before issuing a regulation that “would apply to [one entity] alone,” as
“there [were] many other interested parties and groups who [would be] affected” by the agency’s
action.27
As discussed in more detail below, administrative adjudications take a variety of forms ranging
from fairly judicialized and procedurally complex to highly informal and procedurally minimal.28
Many proceedings, including adversarial proceedings governed by the APA’s formal hearing
provisions,29 may resemble civil bench trials in federal district court.30 Others, governed by
substantive statutes, such as tariff classification rulings, lack robust procedural rules and
protections.31 In addition to adversarial proceedings—which are characterized by “partisan
advocacy on both sides of a case” and in which “control is reserved to the litigants”32—many
federal adjudication proceedings are inquisitorial in nature, whereby an agency’s adjudicator, not
the parties to the proceedings, bears primary responsibility for developing the issues in a case.33
“Formal” and “Informal” Adjudications
Courts, commentators, and practitioners often characterize federal administrative adjudications
either as “formal adjudications,” which are adjudicative proceedings that are statutorily governed

23 NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 765-66 (1969) (plurality); see Neustar, Inc. v. FCC, 857 F.3d 886, 894
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (“The fact that an order rendered in an adjudication may affect agency policy and have general
prospective application[] does not make it rulemaking subject to APA section 553 notice and comment.”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
24 Yesler Terrace Cmty, 37 F.3d at 448 (explaining that a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development had “all the hallmarks of a rule” because it “had no immediate, concrete effect on anyone, but merely
permitted [public housing authorities] to evict tenants in the future without providing them with informal grievance
hearings,” and “affected the rights of a broad category of individuals not yet identified”); see Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke,
878 F.3d 316, 333–34 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining that bans on importation of sport-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “were not retroactive [adjudications] because their issuance resulted in no
immediate legal consequences for any specific parties”).
25 See Law Motor Freight, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 364 F.2d 139, 143 n.4 (1st Cir. 1966) (“‘[W]hat is otherwise
rule making [under the APA] does not become adjudication merely because it applies only to particular parties or to a
particular situation.’”) (quoting KENNETH CULP DAVIS, 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 5.02, at 296 (1958)).
26 482 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1973).
27 Id. at 1303, 1306.
28 Daniel J. Sheffner, Access to Adjudication Materials on Federal Agency Websites, 51 AKRON L. REV. 447, 451
(2017); see infra “Brief Survey of Informal Adjudication.”
29 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557.
30 See Richard W. Murphy, Judicial Deference, Agency Commitment, and Force of Law, 66 OHIO ST. L.J. 1013, 1053
(2005).
31 See infra “Non-Adversarial Interviews or Inspections.”
32 Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862 (1975); Verkuil, supra note 1, at 743.
33 As the Supreme Court has explained in the context of a federal administrative adjudication scheme, “[t]he critical
feature that distinguishes adversarial proceedings from inquisitorial ones is whether” parties “bear the responsibility to
develop issues for adjudicators’ consideration.” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1358 (2021).
Congressional Research Service

4

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

by APA’s formal hearing provisions,34 or “informal adjudications,”35 which embrace all
administrative agency adjudications that are not formal adjudications.36 Although a small number
of APA provisions apply to informal adjudications,37 their procedural components come primarily
from other sources of law.38
Recently, some commentators have proposed categorizing adjudications based on whether an
evidentiary hearing requirement governs the proceeding, and, if so, the source of such
requirement.39 These three categories embrace, respectively: (1) adjudications subject to the
APA’s formal hearing provisions; (2) adjudications governed by legally required evidentiary
proceedings other than those established by the APA’s formal hearing provisions; and (3)
adjudications that are not subject to legally required evidentiary hearings.40 The first category
embraces formal adjudication,41 while the second and third categories are coextensive with
informal adjudication as traditionally defined.42
Formal Adjudication
Formal adjudications are proceedings that, under statute, must be conducted in accordance with
the formal hearing provisions of the APA contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557.43 Those

34 Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 1151, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557.
35 See Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, 627 F.2d at 1161 n.17.
36 See Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “[t]he challenged
action is an ‘informal adjudication’ which is the administrative law term for agency action that is neither the product of
formal adjudication or a rulemaking”).
37 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 555, 558.
38 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 2–3; see infra “Due Process and Other
Sources of Adjudication Procedures.”
39 See, e.g., Emily S. Bremer, Designing the Decider, 16 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 67, 69 (2018) [hereinafter Bremer,
Designing the Decider] (refusing to use “the traditional formal-informal dichotomy in favor of [the more recent]
classification scheme”). An “evidentiary hearing,” for purposes of this framework, is an oral or written proceeding for
the submission of evidence that produces an exclusive record, meaning that the adjudicator may not consider other
evidence. ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 10.
40 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 3–4. This scheme was developed by
Professor Michael Asimow. See, e.g., Michael Asimow, The Spreading Umbrella: Extending the APA’s Adjudication
Provisions to All Evidentiary Hearings Required by Statute, 56 ADMIN. L. REV. 1003, 1005-06 (2004). Asimow refers
to the three types of adjudication as Type A adjudications, Type B adjudications, and Type C adjudications,
respectively. See MICHAEL ASIMOW, ADMIN. CONF. OF THE U.S., EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS OUTSIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT 2 (2016). The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) referred to Types A, B, and C
adjudications by those names in the preamble of a formal recommendation that was based on Asimow’s 2016 research
report (which ACUS had commissioned). See Adoption of Recommendations, 81 Fed. Reg. 94312, 94314-315 (Dec.
23, 2016). The agency has adhered or referred to the classification in subsequent recommendations. See, e.g., Adoption
of Recommendations, 84 Fed. Reg. 2139, 2140 n.4 (Feb. 6, 2019) (“This Recommendation addresses both Type A and
Type B adjudications but does not apply to adjudications that do not involve a legally required evidentiary hearing
(known as ‘Type C’ adjudications.).”).
41 81 Fed. Reg. at 94314 n.4 (clarifying that “[t]raditionally, [the first category of] adjudication has been referred to as
‘formal adjudication’”); but see Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1760 n.51 (2020) (asserting
that the first category “includes proceedings that would not be considered ‘formal’ under the traditional approach
because they are not required by statute to be conducted under the APA’s adjudication provisions,” but rather by
regulation) (emphasis added).
42 ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 5 (explaining that “[t]he word ‘informal’ is
commonly used in practice and in scholarship to cover [the second and third categories of] adjudication” mentioned
above).
43 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557. Section 554 exempts the following from the APA’s formal adjudication provisions:
Congressional Research Service

5

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

provisions apply when a statute explicitly states that a hearing is required “on the record” in
relation to an adjudicative decision44 or explicitly makes the provisions applicable to adjudicative
proceedings even if it does not use the “on the record” language.45 However, if a statute does
neither, courts typically defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the governing statute
that §§ 554, 556, and 557 do not apply to the proceedings.46
The APA’s formal hearing provisions establish trial-type, adversarial hearing procedures.47 They
“were designed to ensure fairness, impartiality, and due process in administrative
adjudications.”48 Under the APA, agencies must give parties timely notice of “the time, place, and
nature of the hearing,” “the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held,”
and “the matters of fact and law asserted.”49 A party may “present his case or defense by oral or
documentary evidence,” present “rebuttal evidence,” and “conduct such cross-examination as
may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”50 Filings, exhibits, and the transcript
of testimony of a proceeding comprise “the exclusive record” on which a decision may be
based.51 The adjudicator, at the conclusion of a hearing, issues a decision that must contain his or
her “findings and conclusions.”52
A special class of adjudicator called an “administrative law judge” (ALJ) generally preside over
formal adjudication proceedings. The APA directs “[e]ach agency” to “appoint as many” ALJs “as
are necessary for proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with” the adjudication
provisions of the APA.53 As of March 2017, there were 1,931 ALJs employed by the federal
government.54 The APA establishes ALJs’ powers, stating that, subject to an agency’s published

(1) a matter subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo in a court;
(2) the selection or tenure of an employee, except a[n] administrative law judge appointed under
section 3105 of this title;
(3) proceedings in which decisions rest solely on inspections, tests, or elections;
(4) the conduct of military or foreign affairs functions;
(5) cases in which an agency is acting as an agent for a court; or
(6) the certification of worker representatives.
Id. § 554(a).
44 Id. § 554(a); see Crestview Parke Care Ctr. v. Thompson, 373 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Lower courts have
explicitly held that a formal adjudication featuring an oral evidentiary hearing is required by the APA only when a
statute explicitly calls for a hearing ‘on the record.”).
45 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at, 15.
46 See, e.g., Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson, 443 F.3d 12, 16–18 (1st Cir. 2006).
47 See Crestview Parke Care, 373 F.3d at 748 (explaining that the APA’s formal hearing provisions establish
“procedures [that] mirror the elements of a judicial trial”).
48 MATTHEW LEE WIENER ET AL., ADMIN. CONF. OF THE U.S., EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:
EVALUATING THE STATUS AND PLACEMENT OF ADJUDICATORS IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR HEARING PROGRAM 6 (2014).
49 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)(1)–(3).
50 Id. § 556(d).
51 Id. § 556(e).
52 Id. § 557(b), (c)(3). Under the APA, if an “agency did not preside at the reception of the evidence” in a proceeding,
the presiding adjudicator will issue an initial decision following a hearing, “unless the agency requires . . . the entire
record to be certified to it for decision.” Id. § 557(b). An initial decision becomes the agency’s decision “unless there is
an appeal to, or review on motion of, the agency within time provided by rule.” Id. However, “[w]hen the agency
makes the decision without having presided at the reception of the evidence, the presiding [adjudicator generally] shall
first recommend a decision.” Id.
53 Id. § 3105.
54 ALJs by Agency, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MGMT. (last accessed July 7, 2021), https://www.opm.gov/services-for-
Congressional Research Service

6

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

rules, an ALJ may administer oaths to witnesses; issue subpoenas (if subpoenas are otherwise
authorized); determine evidentiary disputes and “receive relevant evidence”; conduct depositions
or authorize the taking of depositions; generally “regulate the course of the hearing”; hold
settlement conferences; issue initial or recommended decisions at the conclusion of proceedings;
and “take other action as authorized by agency rule consistent with” the APA.55
Several provisions of the APA ensure that ALJs enjoy a level of independence from the agencies
for which they work.56 For example, the APA promotes the “separation of functions” 57 between
agency adjudicators on one side and agency prosecutors and investigators on the other by
prohibiting prosecutors and investigators from supervising ALJs.58 The APA also generally
prohibits them from participating or advising in an agency’s decision in a case (or “factually
related” one) in which they are serving as prosecutors or investigators.59 ALJs also are statutorily
required to carry out their responsibilities impartially,60 and typically are prohibited from
engaging in off-the-record communications pertaining to the merits of a proceeding with
interested parties who are not part of the agency.61 The latter requirement is known as the APA’s
prohibition of “ex parte communications” or “ex parte contacts.”62 Lastly, ALJs benefit from
protections from at-will removal by the agency for which they are employed. Per the APA, ALJs
may only be removed from their positions “for good cause established and determined by the
Merit Systems Protection Board.”63 The members of the MSPB, in turn, also are protected from
at-will removal.64

agencies/administrative-law-judges/#url=ALJs-by-Agency. The vast majority of ALJs during this period (1,655) were
employed by SSA. Id. Of the ALJs employed by other agencies during the same period, significant numbers worked for
the Department of Health and Human Services (101) and the Department of Labor (41). Id.
55 5 U.S.C. § 556(c).
56 See Kent Barnett & Russell Wheeler, Non-ALJ Adjudicators in Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, and
Removal, 53 GA. L. REV. 1, 15-16 (2018).
57 AM. BAR ASS’N, A BLACKLETTER STATEMENT OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 12 –13 (2d ed. 2013); see Kent H.
Barnett, Some Kind of Hearing Officer, 94 WASH. L. REV. 515, 533 (2019) (explaining that “the APA requires a
separation of functions, for which ALJs cannot investigate or prosecute or report to an agency official who does”).
58 5 U.S.C. § 554(d)(2).
59 Id. § 557(d); Admin. Conf. of the U.S. & Am. Bar Ass’n, Administrative Procedure Act, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE SOURCEBOOK, https://sourcebook.acus.gov/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act/view (last visited Sept. 24,
2021) (explaining that the APA “addresses ‘separation of functions’ by restricting agency employees engaged in
investigation or prosecution of a case from supervising the presiding officer or participating or advising in the decision
in that or a factually related case (with certain exceptions)”); see 5 U.S.C. § 3105 (ALJs “may not perform duties
inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as ALJs”). Cf. ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION,
supra note 22, at 64 n.280 (referring to the supervision limitation as a “command-influence rule” and the participation
restriction as the separation of functions rule).
60 5 U.S.C. § 556(b).
61 Id. §§ 551(14), 557(d)(1). The APA also generally prohibits ALJs from “consult[ing] a person or party on a fact in
issue.” Id. § 554(d)(1).
62 See Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1539 (9th Cir. 1993).
63 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a). Agencies are also, pursuant to Office of Personnel Management regulation, prohibited from
evaluating the performance of ALJs and awarding them bonuses. 5 C.F.R. § 930.206. Additionally, ALJs are subject to
an ALJ-specific pay scale. Id. § 930.205.
64 See Id. § 1202(d) (providing that Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) members “may be removed by the
President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”); see also CRS Report R45630, Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB): A Legal Overview, by Jon O. Shimabukuro and Jennifer A. Staman, at 3; Kent Barnett,
Regulating Impartiality in Agency Adjudication, 69 DUKE L.J. 1695, 1698 (2020) (explaining, in addition, that ALJs
may derive protections from any possible removal protections enjoyed by “the head of the ALJs’ employing
department”). Agencies are also, pursuant to Office of Personnel Management regulation, prohibited from evaluating
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 14 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Relatively recent Supreme Court decisions and executive branch actions have significantly
altered or raised questions about the appointment, hiring, and removal of ALJs by the executive
branch.65 Discussion of these ALJ developments is outside the scope of this report, but can be
found in other CRS products.66
Informal Adjudication
Informal adjudication is a catch-all category covering all types of administrative adjudication
proceedings that are not governed by the APA’s formal hearing provisions.67 Adjudications may
fall into this category regardless of their level of procedural formality (or lack thereof).68 Thus,
for example, EEOC’s federal sector equal employment opportunity adjudicative program—which
consists of adversarial hearings that provide for discovery, permit the submission of oral and
documentary evidence, and contain other trial-type attributes69—are informal adjudication
proceedings under the traditional formal/informal dichotomy even if they would be considered
“formal” in a colloquial understanding.70 On the other hand, the category of informal adjudication
also embraces adjudicative proceedings that are procedurally minimal, such as tariff classification
rulings.71 In between the two poles of trial-like and procedurally bare are a variety of adjudicative
programs that differ from formal APA adjudications and from each other to various degrees.72
This report examines the variety of informal adjudicative programs more closely below.73

the performance of ALJs and awarding them bonuses. 5 C.F.R. § 930.206. Additionally, ALJs are subject to an ALJ-
specific pay scale. Id. § 930.205.
65 See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018) (holding that ALJs of the Securities and Exchange Commission are
“Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2); Exec.
Order, 13843, 83 Fed. Reg. 32755 (July 13, 2018) (removing ALJs from competitive civil service and placing control
over ALJ hiring in agency heads); Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 29–32, Axon Enter. v. FTC, No. 21-86 (U.S. July
20, 2021) (asking Supreme Court to determine that the removal protections afforded ALJs of the Federal Trade
Commission are unconstitutional).
66 See, e.g., CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10615, Supreme Court Preserves Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but with Greater
Executive Oversight, by Kevin J. Hickey and Victoria L. Killion; CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10153, Supreme Court Holds
That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are “Officers” Subject to the Appointments Clause, by Victoria L. Killion.
67 See Christopher J. Walker, The Lost World of the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 28 GEO.
MASON L. REV. 733, 747 (2021) (explaining that “informal adjudication” is a “residual category that encompasses any
agency adjudication not subject to” the APA’s formal hearing provisions); Nielson, supra note 5, at 665 (writing that
“‘informal adjudications are essentially the default form of agency decisionmaking’” (quoting 2 THE FUNDAMENTALS
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FOR NATURAL RESOURCES PRACTICE 1, 1-4 (2019)).
68 Bremer, Designing the Decider, supra note 39, at 69 (observing that “so-called informal adjudication is often
conducted according to procedures that are as or more formal (in the colloquial sense of ‘trial-like’) than the procedures
specified by the APA’s ‘formal’ adjudication provisions”).
69 See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109.
70 See Bremer, Designing the Decider, supra note 39, at 69 (“[S]o-called informal adjudication is often conducted
according to procedures that are as or more formal (in the colloquial sense of ‘trial-like’) than the procedures specified
by the APA’s ‘formal’ adjudication provisions.”).
71 ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 96–96; see 19 C.F.R. § 177.4(a) (permitting
oral discussions between agency personnel and parties who have submitted requests for a letter ruling only when “a
conference will be helpful in deciding the issue or issues involved or when a determination or conclusion contrary to
that advocated in the ruling request is contemplated”).
72 See Sheffner, supra note 28, at 450–51 (“Non-APA adjudication schemes vary substantially, ranging from ‘semi-
formal’ proceedings that, like APA hearings, are conducted pursuant to procedurally robust evidentiary procedures, to
those, like tariff classification rulings, that are non-adversarial and procedurally bare.”) (footnote omitted).
73 See infra “Brief Survey of Brief Survey of Informal Adjudication.”
Congressional Research Service

8

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Unlike ALJs in formal adjudicatory proceedings, who share a uniform title and uniform
protections and limitations, the titles, protections, and limitations of non-ALJ adjudicators who
preside over informal adjudication proceedings vary.74 A 2018 study reported that agencies
employed “at least 10,831” non-ALJ adjudicators, over 7,000 of whom were patent examiners in
the Department of Commerce’s Patent & Trademark Office.75
Due Process and Other Sources of Adjudication Procedures
The procedures that govern an agency adjudication proceeding and provide protections for parties
may stem from a variety of sources. As discussed above, the APA’s formal hearing provisions
contain specific procedural requirements for covered adjudications.76 The APA also contains a
small number of procedures applicable to all adjudications.77 Other potential sources of procedure
include statutes (other than the APA), agency procedural rules, and agency sub-regulatory
guidance.78 While agencies are free to craft procedures applicable to adjudicative proceedings
consistent with authority conferred by Congress, courts may not require additional procedures
that are not required by the APA, other relevant statutes, or the Constitution.79
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment supplies flexible procedural parameters that
apply to some federal administrative adjudication proceedings.80 The Clause states that “[n]o
person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”81 Several
principles and considerations govern whether a party in a given situation is entitled to due process
and, if so, the procedural protections afforded by the Clause.82 Most relevant to the federal agency

74 See Barnett & Wheeler, supra note 56, at 5. Such adjudicators are known by many titles, including “administrative
judge,” “immigration judge,” “hearing examiner,” and other similar titles. See id.
75 Id. at 32. Many commentators conceptualize patent adjudication proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (PTAB, within the Patent & Trademark Office) as informal adjudication, in part because non-ALJ
adjudicators preside. See generally Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1766-67. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, has applied the APA’s formal hearing requirements to PTAB proceedings.
See, e.g., Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
76 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556–557; see supra “Formal Adjudication.”
77 5 U.S.C. §§ 555, 558; see infra “Statutory Defaults for Informal Adjudication.”
78 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 3.
79 See Pension Benefit Guar Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 653–56 (1990).
80 See U.S. CONST. amend. V.
81 Id.
82 In addition to the principles discussed infra notes 83–88, a party alleging a due process violation must establish that
the government infringed a protected interest. See Na’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988).
This is known as the “state action” requirement. See Erwin Chemerinsky, Rethinking State Action, 80 NW. U. L. REV.
503, 508 & n.15 (1985). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause specifically applies to the federal government.
Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 299 (1927). (The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to
state and local governments. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.) However, in some instances, a private entity may be
required to comply with due process, such as when the government transferred a “public function” to the entity, or
when “the government controlled or was excessively intertwined with a nominally private actor.” W. State Univ. of S.
Cal. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133-34 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch.
Ath. Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001) (writing, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, that
“[w]e have . . . held that a challenged activity may be state action when it results from the State’s exercise of ‘coercive
power,’ when the State provides ‘significant encouragement, either overt or covert,’ or when a private actor operates as
a ‘willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents[.]’ We have treated a nominally private entity as a state
actor when it is controlled by an ‘agency of the State,’ when it has been delegated a public function by the State, when
it is ‘entwined with governmental policies’ or when government is ‘entwined in [its] management or control[.]’”)
(citations omitted) (third alteration in original).
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 5 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

adjudication context, for the Clause to apply, an agency must deprive a person of a “life,”
“liberty,” or “property” interest.83 In addition, where the federal government is depriving a person
of life, liberty, or property, the due process analysis requires determinating what procedures are
“due,” as well as when the government must provide such procedures.84
The Supreme Court has instructed courts to determine the timing and content of the procedures
required by the Due Process Clause on a case-by-case basis after balancing three factors: (1) the
relevant “private interest”; (2) the risk that applying existing procedures will result in an
“erroneous deprivation of such interest,” along with the “probable value” of providing “additional
or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the government’s interest, which includes “the
function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail.”85
An assessment of these factors does not always lead to the conclusion that additional procedures
are needed beyond what the agency has provided, nor that a hearing must be provided prior to the
government’s deprivation of a protected interest.86 Notice of the nature of the government action
and an opportunity to be heard are generally the minimum procedural requirements whenever due
process applies; beyond that baseline, however, the nature of the procedures that are due varies by

Further, a due process violation only arises if the infringing action constitutes a “deprivation” as defined by the courts.
Harm to a protected interest must be more than de minimis to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause. See
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975). And negligent conduct that infringes a protected right is not a “deprivation.”
See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986).
83 U.S. CONST. amend. V. In the context of federal administrative adjudication, claims under the Due Process Clause
concerning deprivations of life are rare. See AM. BAR ASS’N, A GUIDE TO FEDERAL AGENCY ADJUDICATION 13 (2d ed.
2012, Jeffrey B. Litwak ed.) [hereinafter GUIDE TO FEDERAL AGENCY ADJUDICATION].
The right to liberty protected by the Due Process Clause stems from many sources. The Supreme Court has explained
that a “liberty interest may arise from the Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word ‘liberty,’” as
well as “from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221
(2005). Liberty interests may also flow from federal statutes and regulations. See GUIDE TO FEDERAL AGENCY
ADJUDICATION, supra note 83, at 13. The Court has interpreted the liberty guaranteed by due process broadly,
instructing that “liberty” not only encompasses one’s “freedom from bodily restraint,” but also a panoply of other
rights, including:
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to
acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long
recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972) (quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)) (ellipses in
original).
Property interests protected by the Due Process Clause are derived from sources of positive law outside the
Constitution. Roth, 480 U.S. at 577. In Board of Regents v. Roth, the Supreme Court explained that interests in property
“are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source
such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those
benefits.” Id. at 577. Property interests may lie in traditional types of property, such as “real estate, chattels, or money.”
Id.; ASIMOW & LEVIN, supra note 14, at 32. They also attach to a party’s legal entitlement to a benefit, such as disability
benefits, licenses to practice certain jobs or professions, or rights to government employment. See Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319 (1976); Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
The Court has explained that “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person . . . . must . . . have a legitimate claim
of entitlement to it,” as opposed “an abstract need or desire for it” or “unilateral expectation of it.” Roth, 408 U.S. at
577.
84 See GUIDE TO FEDERAL AGENCY ADJUDICATION, supra note 83, at 12.
85 Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
86 See id. at 349.
Congressional Research Service

10

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

context under the flexible three-factor analysis.87 While agency adjudication procedures can
exceed those required by the Due Process Clause, they may not fall below the minimum threshold
it establishes.88
Brief Survey of Informal Adjudication
As mentioned above, most federal agency adjudication is “informal” in the sense that the formal
adjudication requirements contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557 do not apply.89 This section
of the report provides a general overview of major categories of informal adjudication schemes
that federal agencies currently employ, focusing on the distinction between adversarial trial-type
proceedings (often used in enforcement actions) and single-party inquisitorial proceedings (often
used for benefits administration).90 The section also mentions major due process constraints that
restrict Congress’s ability to employ each category.91 The discussion in this section draws from
the detailed examination and statistical analysis of informal adjudication schemes contained in
two studies published by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a federal
agency responsible for studying and recommending improvements to federal administrative
procedure.92

87 See, e.g., Gibson v. Texas Dep’t of Ins., 700 F.3d 227, 239 (5th Cir. 2012). Due process constraints concerning
certain informal adjudication themes are discussed below. See infra “Brief Survey of Informal Adjudication.”
88 See 1 KRISTIN E. HICKMAN & RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 7.1, at 728 (6th ed. 2019).
89 Walker & Wasserman, supra note 4, at 153 (“Some experts estimate that as much as 90 percent of all agency
adjudication occurs outside of APA formal adjudication proceedings.”); see supra text at note 75 (discussing number of
informal adjudicators employed by federal agencies).
90 See Jon C. Dubin, Torquemada Meets Kafka: The Misapplication of the Issue Exhaustion Doctrine to Inquisitorial
Administrative Proceedings, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1289, 1301 (1997) (“While federal regulatory agencies have largely
chosen adversarial adjudicative systems, federal benefactory agencies typically employ inquisitorial models.”); cf.
ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 3–4 (categorizing agency adjudication schemes
according to the “Type A,” “Type B”, and “Type C” formulation mentioned previously); Alan B. Morrison,
Administrative Agencies Are Just Like Legislatures and Courts-Except When They're Not, 59 ADMIN. L. REV. 79, 99
(2007) (categorizing “non-APA based proceedings” as “semi-formal adjudications” and “truly informal
adjudications”).
91 The due process discussion in this section generally assumes, unless noted otherwise, that de novo review is not
available in federal court unless noted otherwise; the availability of de novo judicial review of agency adjudication
mitigates procedural due process issues. See Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1274 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A trial de
novo, in which the existence of a violation is examined afresh, and the parties are not limited in their arguments to the
contents of the administrative record, satisfies the strictures of procedural due process.”); William Baude, Adjudication
Outside Article III, 133 HARV. L. REV. 1511, 1577–78 (2020) (“The standard case of agency adjudication is one where
the agency adjudicates a dispute on some topic in public law or public regulation; applies some procedures now
associated with due process; and receives review, but not de novo review, from an Article III court.”); see infra text at
note 186 (discussing the use of procedurally bare informal adjudication systems where de novo review is available in
federal court).
92 KENT BARNETT ET AL., ADMIN. CONF. OF THE U.S., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS IN FEDERAL AGENCIES: STATUS,
SELECTION, OVERSIGHT, AND REMOVAL (2018) [hereinafter BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS]; ASIMOW,
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22. For brevity, this section of the report refers to these studies as
“ACUS publications,” although they were written by outside adjudication scholars.
Congressional Research Service

11

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Adversarial Trial-Type Proceedings Not Governed by Formal APA
Requirements
Category Overview
Concept: Agency adjudication schemes that fol ow the APA’s adversarial trial-type model but are not governed
by 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557.
Examples: Immigration court proceedings; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) adjudication of
discrimination claims.
Notable Features:

Instead of ALJs, other categories of adjudicators preside. Most often, they are less insulated from agency
control than ALJs are.

With the APA requirements for formal adjudication inapplicable, the governing statutory parameters
typically do not address specific procedural issues (e.g., the rules for ex parte contacts), leaving agencies
to fil in the gaps.
Due Process Concerns: Minimal, because these proceedings typically confer the basic rights associated with
trial-type evidentiary hearings.
Concept. One widespread type of informal adjudication employs evidentiary hearings that are
adversarial but not governed by the APA’s formal adjudication requirements. These informal
adversarial hearings are instead governed by program-specific enabling statutes, agency
regulations, or other agency sources.93 Such hearings resemble civil trials, but are not subject to
the APA’s default specifications for how adversarial hearings should function.94 Some
commentary calls these adjudication schemes “formal-like” proceedings to convey that, while
“informal” in the APA sense, the proceedings generally conform to the judicial model.95
Examples. Major examples of administrative adjudication schemes that fall into this category
include immigration court proceedings within the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of
Immigration Review (EOIR)96 and EEOC proceedings to adjudicate discrimination claims.97
Other federal agencies that conduct informal, trial-type adversarial adjudications in significant
numbers include the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Department of Health and Human
Services.98 Although these and other adjudication schemes in this category have unique features,
they are all adversarial proceedings in which the exclusive record principle applies and in which
two parties contest a dispute before a mostly passive adjudicator.99 Often the dispute is between

93 See Bremer, Designing the Decider, supra note 39, at 69; Verkuil, supra note 1, at 796 (concluding that in informal
adjudication, “the ability to get the right fit between program and procedure lies primarily with the agencies”).
94 See, e.g., Mathilde Cohen, When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach, 72
WASH. & LEE L. REV. 483, 539 (2015) (explaining that “immigration courts are not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act's formal adjudication requirement” but that immigration court procedure “has gradually evolved to more
closely resemble formal adjudication”).
95 Walker, supra note 67, at 749.
96 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; see generally CRS In Focus IF11536, Formal Removal Proceedings: An Introduction, by
Hillel R. Smith. EOIR removal proceedings are often called “formal” in the colloquial sense—because they resemble
bench trials—not in the APA sense. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
the “formal” EOIR process from other “streamlined” removal proceedings that are “summary in nature”).
97 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109; see U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, Management Directive 110, at ch. 7 (Hearings)
(2015), https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/management-directive-110.
98 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 23-24 (table listing caseloads for informal
adjudication schemes that require evidentiary hearings). Note that the ACUS table includes some agencies that provide
inquisitorial rather than adversarial hearings, including most notably the Department of Veterans Affairs. Id.
99 See, e.g., U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, Hearing Process (“Parties generally are permitted to make opening
Congressional Research Service

12

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

the government and an individual (as in the case of EOIR and EEOC proceedings), although
some of these adjudication schemes provide a forum for contests between private parties.100
Of the major schemes in this category, the EOIR immigration court system has the largest
caseload, with over 300,000 cases received annually in fiscal years 2018-2020 and a backlog of
more than 1.2 million pending cases.101
Key Features. Although adjudication schemes in this category share a trial-type format with
formal APA adjudication, they may depart from the APA’s formal adjudication requirements in
significant respects. Typically, the salient area of departure concerns the adjudicator.102 Whereas,
as explained above,103 the APA generally requires that ALJs preside over formal adjudications
(unless the agency heads preside or another statutory provision overrides this requirement),104
informal adversarial hearing schemes employ different types of adjudicators subject to different
(and often reduced) protections from agency control.105 In immigration court, adjudicators are
called “immigration judges” or “IJs.”106 In EEOC proceedings, they are called “administrative
judges” or “AJs.”107 According to an ACUS publication, non-ALJ adjudicators rarely enjoy the
level of protection from agency influence—such as restrictions on termination, salary
adjustments, and agency performance appraisals—that ALJs enjoy.108 Constitutional law
questions, however, bear upon legislative efforts to confer substantial independence on
administrative adjudicators. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, statutory provisions that
insulate administrative adjudicators—whether ALJs or not—from agency supervision may raise
thorny issues under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.109 Certain

and closing statements, offer into evidence witness testimony and documents, examine and cross-examine witnesses
and raise objections and obtain rulings on objections from the AJ [administrative judge].”),
https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/hearing-process (last visited Sept. 9, 2021); CRS In Focus IF11536, Formal
Removal Proceedings: An Introduction, by Hillel R. Smith (explaining that in formal removal proceedings before
EOIR “an alien may present testimony and evidence in support of an application for relief. The IJ [immigration judge]
may direct the parties to present opening or closing statements. The alien’s counsel (or the IJ if the alien is
unrepresented) may conduct direct examination of the alien, and DHS counsel conducts cross-examination. The IJ may
question the alien and any witnesses.”).
100 See, e,g., ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 60, 110 (discussing U.S. Department
of Agriculture dispute resolution under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act).
101 EOIR, Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions (July 8, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/workload-
and-adjudication-statistics; see CRS In Focus IF11690, Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020,
by Holly Straut-Eppsteiner. An ACUS publication describes each of the major adjudication schemes in this category in
detail. See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at Appendix A.
102 BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS, supra note 92, at 8-9 (explaining that agency adjudication schemes “that
do not qualify as formal adjudication under the APA” are “often similar in formality and procedure to formal
adjudication” but differ “in one key respect: non-ALJs preside over them”).
103 See supra “Formal and Informal Adjudications.”
104 5 U.S.C. § 556(b).
105 BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS, supra note 92, at 1.
106 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1).
107 See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(a).
108 BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS, supra note 92, at 8-9 (“Except for extremely rare exceptions, non-ALJs,
who go by different titles at different agencies, do not have ALJs’ statutory protections as to their independence.”).
This ACUS publication describes the universe of non-ALJ adjudicators and their various protections in depth.
109 United States v. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1983 (2021) (“[T]he unreviewable executive power exercised by
[Administrative Patent Judges] is incompatible with their status as inferior officers.”); Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044,
2055 (2018) (holding that ALJs of the Securities and Exchange Commission are “Officers of the United States” under
the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and that their appointment by agency staff
violated the Clause); see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10615, Supreme Court Preserves Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but
Congressional Research Service

13

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

restrictions on removing administrative adjudicators, in turn, may raise separation of powers
issues.110
Beyond differences in adjudicators, informal trial-type hearings also commonly deviate from the
APA by lacking specific statutory parameters for certain issues.111 The APA’s formal adjudication
provisions establish rules for a range of procedural issues, including limitations on ex parte
contacts, promotion of the separation of investigative and adjudicatory functions, and the right to
an oral hearing (not merely a written one).112 Formal agency adjudication schemes thus have a
built-in code that addresses major procedural questions.113 Where Congress opts not to apply the
APA to a scheme of adversarial evidentiary hearings, it does not always supply a full suite of
alternative procedural rules in the relevant statute.114 For example, an ACUS study found that,
while most adjudicators in informal proceedings are prohibited from engaging in ex parte
communications, the prohibition arises most often from “internal guidance or custom,” rather
than clear statutory mandate.115 Statutory silence on such issues requires agency action to fill gaps
that, for formal adjudication proceedings, would be covered by the APA.116 The resulting
variation in procedures prompts some to argue that evidentiary hearings should generally follow
APA rules for formal adjudication.117 Many commentators make this argument, although it does
not appear to have gained traction with Congress.118

with Greater Executive Oversight, by Kevin J. Hickey and Victoria L. Killion.
110 See Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd. (PCAOB), 561 U.S. 477, 491-98 (2010) (invalidating on
separation-of-powers grounds statutory provisions providing that members of the PCAOB could be removed only for
cause by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose members were also protected from removal by for cause
removal protections); see Linda D. Jellum, “You’re Fired!” Why the ALJ Multi-Track Dual Removal Provisions
Violate the Constitution and Possible Fixes, 26 GEO. MASON L. REV. 705, 741 (2019) (opining that “ALJ multi-track
removal provisions violate the Constitution, even though each provision would be constitutional independently”); cf.
Decker Coal Co. v. Pehringer, No. 20-71449, 2021 WL 3612787, at *10 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (“[S]ome tenure
restrictions do not violate separation of powers, particularly in the case of inferior officers with sufficient
accountability.”).
111 See Butte Cty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (explaining that in informal adjudication,
“[g]overning procedural rules, derived mainly from . . . 5 U.S.C. § 555, and the Due Process Clause, are few”).
112 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(d), 556(b), 557(d)(1), 3105; see supra “Formal Adjudication.” See generally Walker & Wasserman,
supra note 4, at 149 (Table 1). Section 554(d) addresses separation of functions. See Grolier Inc. v. FTC, 615 F.2d
1215, 1220 (1980) (“[B]y forbidding adjudication by persons ‘engaged in the performance of investigative or
prosecuting functions,’ [quoting 5 U.S.C. § 554(d),] Congress intended to preclude from decisionmaking in a particular
case not only individuals with the title of ‘investigator’ or ‘prosecutor,’ but all persons who had, in that or a factually
related case, been involved with ex parte information, or who had developed, by prior involvement with the case, a
‘will to win.’ ”); BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS, supra note 92, at 7 (“[ALJs] cannot perform duties
inconsistent with their adjudicatory function, such as investigating or prosecuting, or by reporting to an official with
these duties. These provisions provide a separation of functions between adjudication and prosecution within the
agency.”).
113 See Walker & Wasserman, supra note 4, at 149.
114 See Hogen, 613 F.3d at 194; Walker, supra note 67, at 749 (explaining that informal adjudication procedure is
sometimes “set by the respective agency’s organic statute but most” often is “set by regulation or subregulatory
guidance”).
115 BARNETT ET AL., NON-ALJ ADJUDICATORS, supra note 92, at 47.
116 See id.
117 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 60 (“[M]y judgment is that procedures in
Type B adjudication should resemble those in Type A adjudication unless there is a good reason for the contrary
conclusion.”); Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1792 (“Congress should enact a statute
clarifying that the APA’s requirements--potentially with amendments--apply to all evidentiary hearings conducted in
agency adjudication programs.”).
118 See Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1757-59 (describing the lack of default procedures for
Congressional Research Service

14

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Due Process Concerns. Because adjudication schemes in this category include a trial-type
evidentiary hearing, their basic framework generally does not raise the type of procedural due
process issues that the streamlined, non-adversarial decision making discussed later in this report
typically trigger.119 Evidentiary hearings that are adversarial in nature generally satisfy “[t]he
fundamental requirement of due process” of an “opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time
and in a meaningful manner.’”120 Still, even adversarial evidentiary hearings occasionally trigger
due process problems, depending on how the hearings operate. Examples of procedural due
process violations that may occur in connection with trial-type evidentiary hearings include the
denial of the right to retained counsel in enforcement proceedings that implicate a liberty
interest;121 lack of “fair notice of conduct that is forbidden” before enforcement;122 or biased
adjudicators.123
Non-Adversarial Evidentiary Hearings
Category Overview
Concept: Non-adversarial proceedings in which one private party (usually an applicant for benefits) appears
before a proactive adjudicator; no government counsel or opposing party.
Examples: Disability benefits adjudication within the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). (SSA disability hearings are included here due to their non-adversarial nature, although
there is disagreement about whether they constitute formal adjudication under the APA.)124
Notable Features:

A “multiple hats” inquisitorial adjudicator proactively investigates facts and develops claims without the
benefit of opposing counsel.

The use of legal counsel may be disfavored, with an emphasis on non-attorney or “lay representation”
instead.
Due Process Concerns: Low, at least for benefits adjudication systems that do not involve terminating welfare
benefits that constitute entitlements.

informal adjudication as a “hole” in the APA that bucks the consensus around the value of uniformity in informal
rulemaking, but noting that Congress has opted not to draw from uniform APA requirements in recent efforts to craft
agency adjudication schemes); Nielson, supra note 5, at 665 (arguing that the lack of uniform procedure for informal
adjudication is “a significant problem—both as a policy matter (procedural rigor may help create better, more
legitimate outcomes) and doctrinally”); but see Gary J. Edles, An APA-Default Presumption for Administrative
Hearings: Some Thoughts on ‘Ossifying’ the Adjudication Process, 55 ADMIN. L. REV. 787, 789 (2003) (criticizing an
American Bar Association proposal to have the formal adjudication requirements apply by default to any legislation
that calls for a “hearing,” on the ground that the proposal “elevates doctrinal or formalistic considerations over . . .
contemporary needs and practical experience”).
119 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 26 (“Due process can apply to such
adjudication, but it seldom does because the procedural regulations defining the requirements for a legally required
evidentiary hearing generally guarantee private parties more protection than due process would require.”).
120 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
121 See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (“One way we ensure that the ‘standards of fairness’
are met is by guaranteeing that aliens have the opportunity to be represented by counsel. The high stakes of a removal
proceeding and the maze of immigration rules and regulations make evident the necessity of the right to counsel.”).
122 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).
123 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009) (“It is axiomatic that ‘[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a
basic requirement of due process.’ ”); see ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 35
(collecting cases).
124 See infra note 136 for sources that address this debate.
Congressional Research Service

15

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Concept. Agency adjudication schemes that determine eligibility for public benefits tend to be
non-adversarial, designed to protect the interests of the applicant.125 Only one party—typically,
the applicant for benefits—participates in a written or oral evidentiary hearing before an
adjudicator tasked with making an eligibility determination.126 No counsel appears for the
government during the evidentiary hearing.127 Proceedings in this category are often described as
“informal” in a colloquial sense, because their non-adversarial nature may lead to more relaxed
interactions between adjudicator and applicant.128 In the APA sense, the proceedings may have
“formal” elements—i.e., some requirements of formal APA adjudication (such as the use of ALJs
as adjudicators) may apply.129 But notwithstanding the applicability of some APA requirements,
the single-party, non-adversarial nature of these proceedings contrasts sharply with the paradigm
of the adversarial trial on which formal APA adjudication is modeled.130
Examples. This category includes two enormous benefits-adjudication systems: those of the
Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The SSA system is the largest federal administrative adjudication system and is sometimes called
the largest adjudication system in the Western world.131 SSA adjudicates applications for an array
of social security benefits, but most of the complex adjudications concern applications for
disability benefits under one of two programs: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Old Age
Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI).132 The administrative adjudication process provides
for an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ.133 The applicant for benefits is the only party that

125 See Dubin, supra note 90, at 1290-91.
126 See, e.g., Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359 (2021) (no government counsel appears before in proceedings before
ALJ to adjudicate social security disability claims); Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 333-
34 (1985) (no government counsel appears in proceedings to adjudicate veterans benefits claims).
127 Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1359; Walters, 473 U.S. at 333-34; cf. Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1359 (government counsel appears at
appellate phase of SSA proceedings, but only as an adviser, not as opposing counsel). Judicial review of these non-
adversarial adjudication schemes is commonly adversarial, whether before an Article I court (as occurs for veterans
disability benefits) or Article III court (as occurs for social security disability benefits and, at a higher level, veterans
benefits). See CRS In Focus IF11365, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: A Brief Introduction, by Jonathan M.
Gaffney (explaining that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) “has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals
of decisions from the” BVA and that “[p]roceedings before the CAVC are adversarial”); Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d
1110, 1119-20 (11th Cir. 2016) (describing standards for federal court review of social security disability
determinations); Soc. Sec. Admin., Federal Court Review Process, https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/court_process.html
(last visited Sept. 24, 2021). The CAVC is an Article I court. See CRS Report R43746, Congressional Power to Create
Federal Courts: A Legal Overview, by Andrew Nolan and Richard M. Thompson II (“There are two main categories of
non-Article III courts. The first is commonly referred to as ‘legislative courts’ or ‘Article I courts.’ These are
standalone courts, created under Congress’s Article I power, which have similar authority as Article III courts, such as
entering their own judgments and issuing contempt orders. Examples of legislative courts include the U.S. Tax Court;
the Court of Federal Claims; the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . .”).
128 See Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1359 (describing SSA regulations as ensuring “informal, nonadversarial proceedings”).
129 See Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1764-65 (describing controversy as to whether the
APA formal adjudication requirements apply to inquisitorial schemes of social security adjudication).
130 See Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1363 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“This decidedly pro-claimant, inquisitorial process is quite
unlike an adversarial suit in which parties are expected to identify, argue, and preserve all issues.”).
131 Dubin, supra note 90, at 1299; See also Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1776 (2019) (“[T]he SSA is a massive
enterprise . . . .”); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971) (describing the SSA adjudication scheme as “of a
size and extent difficult to comprehend”).
132 Dubin, supra note 90, at 1292 (“OASDI and SSI disability cases account for much of the agency’s caseload in
administrative adjudication and under judicial review.”). Adjudication procedure for disability claims under the two
programs is the same. Id. at 1292 n.18; see Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019) (“The regulations that
govern the two programs are, for today’s purposes, equivalent.”).
133 Smith, 139 S. Ct. at 1775 (“[A] primary application for benefits may not be denied without an ALJ hearing
Congressional Research Service

16

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

presents evidence at this hearing, which is conducted in an “informal” manner.134 However, the
exclusive evidence principle applies: the ALJ may not consider evidence to which the applicant
does not have an opportunity to respond.135 The Supreme Court has left open the question
whether the APA’s program of formal adjudication requirements applies to SSA adjudications.136
One particular APA requirement, however, does not apply: there is no required separation of
investigatory and adjudicative functions.137 The ALJ who presides over the evidentiary hearing
must investigate, develop the record, and even raise claims for the applicant where appropriate
before reaching a decision.138
The VA adjudicates a “vast number of benefit claims”—with a caseload of more than one million
new claims per year, the most common of which are claims for service-connected disability.139
The adjudication scheme provides benefits applicants with an opportunity for a non-adversarial
evidentiary hearing before an administrative judge known as a Veterans Law Judge or “VLJ,”
within an entity called the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA).140 The applicant is the only party
that presents evidence before the VLJ.141 The hearing is meant to resemble a “conversation”
between the applicant and the VLJ.142

(assuming the claimant timely requests one . . .).”).
134 Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359 (2021). Witnesses may testify, whether called by the claimant or the ALJ. 20
C.F.R. § 404.950(e).
135 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including
pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical
evidence and other evidence.”); Yount v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (invalidating SSA
determination on due process grounds where ALJ considered post-hearing exam without giving benefits applicant an
opportunity to address it).
136 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 409 (1971) (“We need not decide whether the APA has general application to
social security disability claims . . . .”); see Dubin, supra note 90, at 1306 (“[W]hile the [Perales] Court upheld the
SSA’s adjudicative model—including the dual investigative and decisional roles of the SSA ALJ—it failed to consider
the applicability of § 554(d) of the APA [requiring separation of functions].”); cf. Final Rule, Hearings Held by
Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals Council, 83 Fed. Reg. 73,138, 73,140 (2020) (arguing that “in light of
the significant differences between [SSA’s] informal, inquisitorial hearings process and the type of hearings process to
which the APA applies, [SSA’s] hearings process is properly viewed as comparable to the APA’s process, but
governed only by the requirements of the [Social Security] Act and procedural due process”).
137 See Dubin, supra note 90, at 1306.
138 See Carr v. Saul, at 1359 (“‘It is the ALJ’s duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and
against granting benefits . . . .’”) (quoting Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 111 (2020)); Higbee v. Sullivan, 975 F.2d 558,
561 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he ALJ is not a mere umpire at such a proceeding, but has an independent duty to fully
develop the record, especially where the claimant is not represented.”).
139 See ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 177.
140 See 38 U.S.C. § 7113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(b). VLJ is the regulatory term; the statutory term is “member of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals.” 38 U.S.C. § 7101(a).
141 See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (discussing participation of benefits applicant and representative in BVA hearing, with no
provision for government counsel); ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 178. As in the
SSA context, witnesses may testify. Whether the representative for a benefits applicant may appear without the
personal appearance of the applicant remains unresolved. Atilano v. McDonough, -- F. 4th --, 2021 WL 4168221, at *5
(Sept. 14, 2021).
142 Johanna Selberg, Note, Truth and Trauma: Exploring the Merits of Non-Adversarial Asylum Hearings, 35 GEO.
IMMIGR. L.J. 929, 943 (2021) (quoting BVA website); Daniel L. Nagin, The Credibility Trap: Notes on a VA
Evidentiary Hearing, 45 U. MEM. L. REV. 887, 902 (2015) (discussing the “informal, non-adversarial nature of a VLJ
hearing”).
Congressional Research Service

17

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Both the SSA and VA adjudication systems are designed to be protective of the applicant,
although both have been criticized for not achieving this goal effectively and for slow
adjudications.143
Key Features. The aim to protect the interests of the applicant for benefits in these single-party
evidentiary hearings manifests itself in the unique role that the adjudicator plays in them. Unlike
adjudicators in adversarial proceedings, who rely primarily upon the parties to advance claims
and present evidence, adjudicators in these non-adversarial schemes proactively develop the
record and the legal theories in the case.144 They are, in other words, inquisitorial adjudicators:
they develop the very matters over which they preside.145 Although adversarial adjudicators
sometimes bear a measure of responsibility for developing the record—immigration judges must
develop evidence of persecution in asylum cases in some circumstances, and even federal district
judges have some responsibility to theorize legal claims for pro se litigants—they typically do so
only as a backstop where the adversarial process breaks down (often because one party is not
represented).146 The inquisitorial adjudicators in these single-party proceedings without
government counsel, in contrast, bear more primary responsibility for developing evidence in the
case.147
In an effort to keep proceedings as “informal and nonadversarial as possible,” the evidentiary
hearing schemes in this category also tend to limit or de-emphasize the role of legal
representation.148 As mentioned already, the government is not represented by counsel in the
evidentiary hearings.149 Even for the private parties involved, legal representation does not play
the central role that it does in adversarial proceedings. Lay representation (i.e., representation by
non-lawyers) and, to a lesser extent, self-representation are common. The VA system goes furthest
in this regard: it prohibits compensating attorneys before issuance of an initial decision in the case
(this occurs before BVA proceedings commence).150 Free lay representation is widely available

143 See Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1776 (2019) (“The four steps preceding judicial review” in SSA
adjudication “can drag on for years.”); FRANK BLOCH, BLOCH ON SOCIAL SECURITY § 4:1 (2021) (“Although relatively
simple cases tend to move through the [SSA] process with few problems, they often do so at a painfully slow pace.”);
Selberg, supra note 142, at 943 (“[S]ome scholars have pointed out that this outwardly non-adversarial, veteran-
friendly system [for adjudicating VA benefits] actually leads to fewer procedural protections for applicants.”).
144 See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (imposing a duty to assist claimants upon the VA); Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359
(2021) (describing the SSA ALJ’s obligation to develop the record); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (“Because of the paternalistic nature of the proceedings, the [BVA] . . . is required ‘to fully and sympathetically
develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits.’”) (quoting McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d
1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
145 Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1358 (“The critical feature that distinguishes adversarial proceedings from inquisitorial ones is
whether claimants bear the responsibility to develop issues for adjudicators’ consideration.”).
146 See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se [in federal court] is ‘to be liberally
construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d
612, 627 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e hold that immigration judges’ duty to fully develop the record—while applicable in all
cases—becomes especially crucial in cases involving unrepresented noncitizens.”).
147 See, e.g., Comer, 552 F.3d at 1368.
148 See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 324 (1985) (describing Congress’s long-standing
interest in limiting legal representation in veterans benefits adjudication as being motivated by the view that “the
system for administering benefits should be managed in a sufficiently informal way that there should be no need for the
employment of an attorney to obtain benefits to which a claimant was entitled, so that the claimant would receive the
entirety of the award without having to divide it with a lawyer”).
149 See supra note 127.
150 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1); see Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1017 (9th Cir 2012) (en banc)
(explaining that adjudication of veterans’ claims for disability compensation “begins at one of the VA’s 57 Regional
Congressional Research Service

18

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

through outside organizations.151 Even during a BVA evidentiary hearing, when the bar on
attorney compensation does not apply, most applicants use lay representation.152 The SSA does
not limit attorney compensation, but, like the VA, it authorizes the use of lay representation.153 It
is common for claimants to appear before the SSA ALJ without a lawyer.154
Due Process Concerns. Applications for benefits not yet conferred on an individual do not
implicate property interests protected by due process unless the benefits constitute an
“entitlement,” meaning that the government has no discretion to deny the benefits to eligible
applicants.155 Courts have held that VA disability and social security disability benefits are
“entitlements” under this analysis—not discretionary benefits—and therefore give rise to
protected property interests.156
In those situations where due process applies, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of
inquisitorial adjudicators—i.e., adjudicators without a separation of functions—in benefits
adjudication schemes.157 It has even held that a lack of separation of functions comports with due
process in professional disciplinary proceedings, such as where the same board that investigates a
doctor’s alleged misconduct decides whether to suspend his medical license.158 The Court has
emphasized, however, that this inquiry is context-specific and that “special facts and
circumstances” may trigger due process violations in some instances where adjudicators also act

Offices and proceeds through the [BVA]”).
151 ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 181-82.
152 Bd. of Veterans’ Appeals, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020, at 36 (showing that about 25% of claimants appearing
before the BVA used attorneys, 9% appeared pro se, and the rest used lay representatives who came from a variety of
sources), https://www.bva.va.gov/docs/Chairmans_Annual_Rpts/BVA2020AR.pdf.
153 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1705(b), 416.1505(b).
154 Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1363 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[SSA] [h]earings are so informal that lawyers,
briefs, and even attendance are often optional.”); Brief for Nat’l Ass’n of Soc. Sec. Claimants Reps. et al. as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021), 2019 WL 11609432, at *24 (“[A] large number of
claimants appear at their ALJ hearings with no representation at all, and a smaller number appear with non-attorney
representatives.”).
155 See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005) (“Our cases recognize that a benefit is not a
protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”); Kent H. Barnett, Some Kind of
Hearing Officer, 94 WASH. L. REV. 515, 527 (2019) (explaining that procedural due process does not apply to “most
adjudications that deny applications for benefits”).
156 Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A veteran is entitled to disability benefits upon a showing
that he meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the governing statutes and regulations. We conclude that such
entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.”) (collecting cases from other circuits); Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“An applicant for social security benefits has a property interest in those benefits.”).
157 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410 (1971) (holding that the SSA ALJ’s role as an “advocate-judge-multiple-
hat” adjudicator who “acts as an examiner charged with developing the facts” does not violate due process); Walters v.
Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 326 (1985) (upholding restrictions on retention of legal counsel for
veterans benefits claims and stating that “flexibility of our approach in due process cases is intended in part to allow
room for other forms of dispute resolution”).
158 Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 58 (1975).
Congressional Research Service

19

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

as investigators.159 In the benefits context, the use of inquisitorial adjudicators has not triggered
due process concerns.160
Similarly, with respect to limitations on the use of legal counsel, the Supreme Court held that a
federal statute limiting attorney compensation in VA benefits cases did not violate due process.161
The Court reasoned that it owed deference to congressional efforts to craft “more informal
procedures” for benefits adjudication and that the need for legal counsel is “considerably
diminished” in non-adversarial proceedings in which the adjudicator must assist the applicant.162
Yet the Court also held that due process required the right to retain counsel in a welfare
termination case,163 and the Court has established that restrictions on retained counsel may raise
considerable due process concerns in proceedings where liberty interests are at stake.164
Non-Adversarial Interviews or Inspections
Category Overview
Concept: A streamlined proceeding in which the adjudicator makes a decision based on whatever information he
or she deems relevant.
Examples: Tariff Classification Rulings made by Customs and Border Protection; visas and other streamlined
immigration adjudications.
Notable Feature: The exclusive record principle does not apply; the adjudicator is not confined to a closed
record or required to offer the parties an opportunity to respond to evidence.
Due Process Concerns: Substantial, given the lack of an evidentiary hearing. Schemes in this category are often
employed where no protected property or liberty interests are at stake, where de novo judicial review is available,
or in contexts where due process applies with reduced force (e.g., immigration).
Concept. Some extremely “informal” adjudication schemes do not provide an opportunity for an
evidentiary hearing. Instead, they empower adjudicators to make rapid decisions based on an
interview, inspection, application, or other type of informal interaction.165 The adjudicator may

159 Id.; see also Hess v. Bd. of Trustees of S. Illinois Univ., 839 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 2016) (in school discipline case,
citing Withrow for the proposition that “[a]lthough biased decision-making does violate due process, the combination
of investigative and adjudicative functions into a single administrator does not, in itself, demonstrate such bias”); but
cf., Osuagwu v. Gila Regional Medical Ctr., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1163-64 (D.N.M. 2012) (distinguishing Withrow
and holding that joint accusatorial and adjudicative function of members of a professional disciplinary board violated
due process where the board members acted “as accuser, prosecutor, investigator, and judge”).
160 See, e.g, Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359 (2021) (describing with approval the inquisitorial nature of SSA
proceedings, including “the ALJ’s duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting
benefits”); Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 804-06 (8th Cir. 2008) (reaffirming that “[s]ocial security disability hearings
are non-adversarial proceedings and therefore do not require full courtroom procedures” and concluding “that due
process under the Fifth Amendment does not require in-person cross-examination in social security disability
hearings.”).
161 Walters, 473 U.S. at 307.
162 Id. at 333-34; see also Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1036 (9th Cir 2012) (en banc)
(“[T]he presence of paid attorneys would transform the VA’s system of benefits administration into an adversarial
system that would tend to reflect the rigorous system of civil litigation that Congress quite plainly intended to preclude.
The choice between a vigorously adversarial system and a less adversarial one reflects serious policy considerations
and is a permissible one.”).
163 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 270-71 (1970) (“[T]he recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so
desires.”); see also infra note 182 (discussing subsequent statutory developments relevant to Goldberg).
164 See Walters, 473 U.S. at 332 (reviewing cases).
165 See 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(ii) (credible fear interviews conducted by asylum officers); 12 C.F.R. § 5.13(a) (review of
bank licensing applications by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)); see generally ASIMOW, FEDERAL
Congressional Research Service

20

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

consider evidence or information acquired from other sources without giving the party to the
dispute an opportunity to respond to it.166 Essentially, the adjudicator makes “[a] unilateral
decision . . . on the basis of whatever information he deem[s] it appropriate to take into
account.”167
Examples. Streamlined adjudication schemes in this category occur throughout the federal
government and include the Tariff Classification Rulings mentioned above made by Customs and
Border Protection;168 fish inspections by the Department of Commerce;169 United States Forest
Service adjudications of applications to use National Forest land;170 and bank licensing
determinations by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.171
One particularly high-volume context in which these adjudication systems occur is immigration
regulation. The Department of State typically adjudicates more than ten million visa applications
annually172 in U.S. embassies and consulates abroad using this type of adjudication system.173 In
addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducts most removals of aliens from the
United States through rapid proceedings—called “expedited removal,” “reinstatement of
removal,” and “administrative removal”—that, at least in most cases, do not allow for evidentiary

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at ch. 5 (“Type C Adjudication”).
166 See, e.g., Johnson v. Vilsack, 833 F.3d 948, 955 (2016) (describing a U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture (USDA)
adjudication procedure in which “there is no procedure for questioning evidence submitted by the opposing party,
much less an evidentiary hearing”); Sec. Bank & Trust v. Heimann, 452 F. Supp. 776, 780 n.5 (1978) (reviewing OCC
adjudication in which agency considered expert opinion without giving parties opportunity to respond).
167 Johnson, 833 F.3d at 957-58 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 83, cmt. b (1982)); see ASIMOW,
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 90. Adjudication schemes in the other two categories may
begin with interviews or inspections of this variety, but they allow parties the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing if
they disagree with the initial decision. See, e.g., Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019) (explaining that SSA
disability adjudication involves two preliminary levels of application-and-decision proceedings before there is an
opportunity for an ALJ hearing). This category includes only adjudication schemes that do not provide an opportunity
for an evidentiary hearing at any stage. See Johnson, 833 F.3d at 952 (noting that the streamlined USDA process results
in a “final agency determination”).
168 19 C.F.R. § 177.0; see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001) (holding that these rulings, known as
TCRs, are not entitled to Chevron deference and describing them as “being churned out at a rate of 10,000 a year at an
agency’s 46 scattered offices”).
169 See 50 C.F.R. § 260.21.
170 See 36 C.F.R. § 251.54(g)(2) (governing the processing of applications for special use permit applications); W.
Montana Comm. Partners, Inc. v. Austin, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1076, 1085-86 (D. Mont. 2015) (describing adjudication
scheme), aff’d 696 F. App’x 789 (9th Cir. 2017).
171 12 C.F.R. § 5.13(a); see generally Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 141 n.3 (1973) (explaining that the OCC
adjudication scheme for bank licensing contemplates “a wide-ranging ex parte investigation”); Sec. Bank & Trust v.
Heimann, 452 F. Supp. 776, 780 (1978) (describing OCC adjudication process). An ACUS publication lists many more
examples and gives an overview of this universe of adjudication schemes. ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at ch. 5.
172 Dep’t of State, FY2019 NIV [Nonimmigrant Visa] Workload by Visa Category (showing 11.7 million nonimmigrant
visas adjudicated in FY2019), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics/nonimmigrant-
visa-statistics.html; Dep’t of State, Report of the Visa Office 2019, at Table 1 (showing between 8.7 million and 10.8
million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued annually between fiscal years (FY) 2015-19, and not including
figures for refused visas), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics/annual-reports/report-
of-the-visa-office-2019.html. For an overview of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa categories, see CRS Report
R45938, Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Visa Categories: Data Brief, by Jill H. Wilson.
173 See 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 (governing refusal of nonimmigrant visas), 42.81 (governing refusal of immigrant visas);
Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 FAM 301.5 (describing primary sources of information that an adjudicator
should consider about an applicant’s ineligibility for a visa, including information from “U.S. government sources” and
“third parties”), https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030105.html#M301_5.
Congressional Research Service

21

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

hearings and thus fit into this category.174 (As mentioned earlier, some removal cases go through
adversarial trial-type proceedings in EOIR immigration courts.175 But DHS may employ the more
rapid proceedings for certain categories of aliens, including those encountered at the border
without valid travel documents, those with prior removal orders who have reentered unlawfully,
and those with aggravated felony convictions.176 Annually, removals conducted through the rapid
proceedings vastly outnumber those conducted through immigration court.177).
Key Feature. The exclusive record principle does not apply in these streamlined proceedings.
The adjudicators are not limited to considering evidence contained within a closed record that is
available to the parties.178 Instead, the adjudicator’s efforts to reach the correct determination
generally lack formal structure: he or she may consider not only information given by the parties
during interviews or other interactions, but also other information that is “available to” the
adjudicator or discovered through independent inquiry.179 Adjudicators need not give the parties
an opportunity to respond to this non-record evidence,180 although sometimes they are required to
disclose the evidence on which they rely in a statement of reasons explaining their decision.181
Due Process Concerns. The lack of an evidentiary hearing means that this category of
adjudication scheme poses substantial due process considerations when used in contexts where
property or liberty interests are at stake. The Supreme Court held, for example, that the
government could not terminate an individual’s welfare benefits without a pre-termination
evidentiary hearing.182 The Supreme Court upheld an SSA statutory scheme that did not provide

174 Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The proceedings are summary in nature and
conducted by front-line immigration enforcement officers employed by DHS.”); see also CRS In Focus IF11357,
Expedited Removal of Aliens: An Introduction, by Hillel R. Smith. A noncitizen who claims asylum or asserts a fear of
persecution abroad and who is ordered removed through these summary procedures can seek immigration judge review
of whether the fear of persecution has an adequate basis (i.e., is “credible” or “reasonable”), and it is not entirely clear
whether the immigration judge is confined to considering a closed record during this review. Compare Dep’t of Justice,
IMMIGRATION COURT PRACTICE MANUAL 116 (2020) (describing a credible fear review proceeding as a “hearing” at
which “[e]vidence may be introduced at the discretion of the Immigration Judge”), with 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.12,
208.30(e)(ii) (contemplating that the DHS officials conducting credible fear interviews may consider “additional facts”
outside of the interview record); see ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 20 (“In the
end, a certain degree of judgment is called for in deciding whether a legally-required adjudicatory procedure is an
evidentiary hearing.”).
175 See Gomez-Velazco, 879 F.3d at 991 (“The most formal process involves a hearing in immigration court before an
immigration judge . . . .”).
176 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1), 1228(b), 1231(a)(5).
177 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Fiscal Year 2020 Enforcement Lifecycle Report, at 19 (2020) (showing a total of 1.4
million removals from FY2014-19, only 46,031 of which were conducted through the “formal” immigration court
process), https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/enforcement-lifecycle.
178 See, e.g., 12 C.F.R. § 5.13(a) (providing that the OCC may “consider information available from any source” when
evaluating bank applications); Sec. Bank & Trust v. Heimann, 452 F. Supp. 776, 780 n.5 (1978) (rejecting argument
that it was “unfair” for the OCC to request and consider an expert opinion without the knowledge of the parties to a
bank license dispute).
179 See, e.g., 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(c) (providing that USDA officials may consider “any other information available to”
them when determining if a vendor participating in the SNAP program has committed a violation); 12 C.F.R. § 5.13(a)
(similar, for OCC adjudication).
180 See, e.g., Johnson v. Vilsack, 833 F.3d 948, 955 (2016) (“no procedure for questioning evidence submitted by the
opposing party”).
181 See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II) (credible fear determinations) (“The officer shall prepare a written record
of a determination . . . . Such record shall include a summary of the material facts as stated by the applicant, such
additional facts (if any) relied upon by the officer, and the officer’s analysis of why, in the light of such facts, the alien
has not established a credible fear of persecution.”).
182 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970) (“[W]hen welfare is discontinued, only a pre-termination evidentiary
Congressional Research Service

22

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

for an evidentiary hearing before the termination of disability benefits, but noted that the scheme
did provide for a post-termination evidentiary hearing.183 Federal courts reviewing due process
challenges generally look askance at an adjudicator’s reliance on evidence to which a party has
no opportunity to respond, which may occur in adjudication schemes of this sort.184
It is within Congress’s powers to craft administrative adjudication schemes without evidentiary
hearings in some contexts. An obvious one is where property or liberty interests are not at stake,
meaning that procedural due process does not apply.185 Another is where, following the
adjudication, the unsuccessful party may seek a trial de novo in federal court.186 Finally, a special
doctrine of procedural due process applies to many immigration adjudications, especially those

hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process.”). The Goldberg court reasoned that statutory law at the
time created an entitlement to the welfare benefits, but a subsequent provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996—sometimes called the Welfare Reform Act—may impact that
analysis. See 42 U.S.C. 601(b) (“This part shall not be interpreted to entitle any individual or family to assistance under
any State program funded under this part.”); State ex. rel. K.M. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 212 W. Va.
783, 792 (2003) (“Goldberg was written before the 1996 Act and concerned rights under the old benefit scheme. . . .
[W]e must reject petitioners’ argument that a pre-termination hearing is required before ending TANF [i.e., the new
scheme] cash assistance due to the expiration of the five-year time limit.”); but see Weston v. Cassata, 37 P.3d 469, 475
(Colo. App. 2001) (“Although we agree that the ‘no entitlement’ language modifies the unconditional entitlement to
welfare benefits previously available under the [old] program, we do not agree that it vitiates all forms of property
rights in welfare benefits.”).
183 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 339-40, 349 (1976) (“We conclude that an evidentiary hearing is not required
prior to the termination of disability benefits and that the present administrative procedures fully comport with due
process.”) (emphasis added).
184 See Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 399–400 (6th Cir. 2017) (explaining that minimum due process
requirements for college discipline proceedings include provision of “an explanation of the evidence against the
student”); Yount v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that SSA ALJ violated due process by
considering post-hearing evidence without affording the benefits applicant a “meaningful opportunity” to address it);
Ali v. Reno, 829 F. Supp. 1415, 1435 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff’d, 22 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Anytime a judicial or quasi-
judicial officer is in possession of information learned secretly, the scope and content of which can only be imagined, a
litigant is disadvantaged.”); Henry J. Friendly, Some Kind of Hearing, U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267 (1975) (“There can . . . be
no fair dispute over the right to know the nature of the evidence on which the administrator relies.”); cf. Kerry v. Din,
576 U.S. 86, 105 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (concluding, under the narrow “facially legitimate and bona fide”
standard of review that governs some visa cases, that the Department of State did not violate due process by denying a
visa on terrorism grounds without disclosing the factual basis for the decision); Sw. Airlines Co. v. TSA, 650 F.3d 752,
757 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (reasoning that an “agency conducting an informal adjudication has no statutory obligation to
prematurely disclose the materials on which it relies so that affected parties may pre-rebut the agency’s ultimate
decision” and citing precedent for the proposition that due process “does not require more” where the adjudication
concerned an industry-wide inquiry rather than individualized considerations).
185 See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 655-56 (1990) (holding that an agency’s failure to
disclose to a party the material on which a decision is based or allow for the introduction of contrary evidence is not
unlawful on fairness grounds “where the Due Process Clause itself does not require” such procedures); ASIMOW,
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 26 (“[T]he majority of Type C adjudicating schemes
involve discretionary decisions that are not covered by due process.”).
186 See Broad St. Food Mkt., Inc. v. United States, 720 F.2d 217, 221 (1st Cir. 1983) (reasoning that the USDA’s one-
year disqualification of a retailer from the food stamp program for a program violation does not violate due process
where the retailer is “accorded de novo review by a court of the finding of violation and limited review of the choice of
sanction”); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(c) (establishing that USDA makes determinations of program violations without limiting
itself to an exclusive record from an evidentiary hearing); see generally ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 95 (“There is little need for a more formal adjudication process at the agency level
when a court will ultimately retry the case.”); cf. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 675-77 (1977) (holding that the
imposition of corporal punishment in public school before allowing any opportunity to respond to accusations of
misconduct does not violate due process, in part because of historical limits on the child’s liberty interest and also
because the state “preserved the traditional judicial proceedings for determining whether the punishment was
justified”).
Congressional Research Service

23

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

that concern aliens seeking admission to the United States.187 Essentially, most aliens coming to
the United States from abroad do not have procedural due process rights with respect to
admission.188 As such, visa procedures and even expedited removal procedures for recent arrivals
at the border are generally not subject to due process analysis, allowing Congress to provide for
streamlined adjudications without evidentiary hearings.189
Statutory Defaults for Informal Adjudication
As noted above, where the APA’s scheme of statutory requirements for formal adjudication does
not apply, an agency is generally left to develop its own adjudication procedures consistent with
the relevant enabling statute and due process.190 However, there are some APA procedural
requirements that do apply to informal adjudication schemes by default—that is, where a separate
statute does not override them.191 This section explains two major types of default parameters that
apply to informal adjudication schemes: (1) the general availability of judicial review under 5
U.S.C. §§ 701–706; and (2) and the minimal requirements of adjudication procedure set out in 5
U.S.C. § 555.
Judicial Review
The APA’s judicial review provisions, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, establish a “general presumption”
that final agency action is subject to judicial review.192 As such, a final agency decision made
through informal adjudication is, like other types of final agency action, generally subject to
review for “arbitrary and capriciousness,” statutory or constitutional violations, and other grounds
set forth in Section 706.193 There are exceptions. Judicial review is not available, for instance,
where precluded by another statute194 or where the decision in question is “committed to agency

187 See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1983 (2020) (holding that aliens seeking entry into
the United States, including aliens apprehended upon attempting to enter unlawfully, have “only those rights regarding
admission that Congress has provided by statute . . . the Due Process Clause provides nothing more”).
188 Id.; Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972) (“It is clear that Mandel personally, as an unadmitted and
nonresident alien, had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.”).
189 Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. at 1983; cf. Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 102-03 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(reasoning that a U.S. citizen may obtain limited judicial review of a visa denial that implicates the citizen’s due
process rights).
190 See Walker, supra note 67, at 749 (explaining that most informal adjudication procedure comes from “regulation or
subregulatory guidance” rather than “the respective agency’s enabling statute”).
191 See 5 U.S.C. § 559 (providing that a statute may “supersede or modify” the APA if “it does so expressly”); Asiana
Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393, 397 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“The question [under Section 559] is whether Congress has
established procedures so clearly different from those required by the APA that it must have intended to displace the
norm.”); see also Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 309-10 (1955) (holding that a subsequent statute satisfied Section
559’s express repeal requirement even though it contained no statement referencing the APA and making it
inapplicable, because legislative history and “clear and categorical direction” in the subsequent statute established that
Congress did not intend for the APA to apply).
192 Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1905 (2020) (“The APA establishes a ‘basic
presumption of judicial review [for] one ‘suffering legal wrong because of agency action.’”) (quoting Abbott
Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702)).
193 5 U.S.C. § 706. One ground of review in Section 706—“substantial evidence” review—does not apply to informal
adjudication, but arbitrary and capricious review does apply and courts have equated the two standards. See Butte Cty.,
Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[I]n their application to the requirement of factual support the
substantial evidence test and the arbitrary or capricious test are one and the same.”).
194 5 U.S.C. § 701; see Block v. Comm. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984) (“Whether and to what extent a
particular statute precludes judicial review is determined not only from its express language, but also from the structure
Congressional Research Service

24

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

discretion by law.”195 Examples of statutory schemes that override the APA presumption and
curtail judicial review of informal agency adjudication occur in the areas of immigration196 and
prison administration.197 Until 1989, a statute sharply curtailed judicial review of VA benefits
determinations; the current statutory scheme instead channels judicial review of such
determinations to the exclusive jurisdiction of an Article I court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (CAVC), and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.198 On the
other side of the ledger, some statutes allow for more expansive judicial review than is available
under Section 706—such as statutes that subject some informal adjudications to de novo review
in federal district court.199 The default rule, however, is that Section 706 authorizes federal courts
to review informal agency adjudication for compliance with statutory and constitutional
requirements and (under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard) for whether agency
determinations are “reasonable and reasonably explained.”200 A CRS Report covers the topic of
judicial review of agency action in depth.201
What limitations apply to Congress’s ability to curtail judicial review of informal agency
adjudication? The complex constitutional law that governs this subject is mostly beyond the
scope of this report. Briefly, there are two primary issues to consider. First, under Article III of the
Constitution, agency adjudication of disputes that implicate so-called “private rights” must be
subject to some degree of judicial review.202 “Private rights” is an amorphous category that

of the statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved.”).
195 5 U.S.C. § 701; see Regents of Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. at 1905.
196 See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)-(C), (e) (curtailing judicial review of some immigration determinations); see
Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1983 (2020) (discussing statutory limitation on judicial
review of credible fear determinations under § 1252(e)).
197 18 U.S.C. § 3625 (rendering the APA judicial review provisions inapplicable to certain determinations by the
Bureau of Prisons concerning individual federal prisoners); see Martin v. Gerlinski, 133 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir.
1998) (“[I]t is apparent that § 3625 precludes judicial review of agency adjudicative decisions but not of rulemaking
decisions.”); Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 248 F. Supp. 3d 172, 182-83 (D.D.C. 2017).
198 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); see Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1020-22 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
(explaining evolution of judicial review scheme, including current provisions establishing that “decisions of the
[Article I] Veterans Court are reviewed exclusively by the Federal Circuit”); CRS In Focus IF11365, U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims: A Brief Introduction, by Jonathan M. Gaffney.
199 See, e.g., Irobe v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 890 F.3d 371, 376 (2018) (“A party aggrieved by the USDA’s final
determination may seek judicial review through ‘a trial de novo . . . in which the court shall determine the validity of
the questioned administrative action in issue.’ ”) (quoting 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13), (15)), see generally ASIMOW,
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 95-96 (collecting examples).
200 Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1158 (2021); Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1971); Butte Cty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(“[A]gency decisions in informal adjudication are subject to judicial review under § 706 of the APA. . . . If the agency
decision is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion it must be set aside.”); Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Taming the
Tail That Wags the Dog: Ex Post and Ex Ante Constraints on Informal Adjudication, 56 ADMIN. L. REV. 1057, 1060–61
(2004) (“A would-be plaintiff may invoke § 706(2)(A)’s ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard of review to obtain general
review of an agency’s decision in an informal adjudication. A reviewing court will apply ‘hard look’ review and
require an agency to justify its decision on the basis of the record as it existed at the time the agency acted.”).
201 CRS Report R44699, An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action, by Jared P. Cole.
202 Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365, 1373 (2018) (“When determining
whether a proceeding involves an exercise of Article III judicial power, this Court's precedents have distinguished
between ‘public rights’ and ‘private rights.’ Those precedents have given Congress significant latitude to assign
adjudication of public rights to entities other than Article III courts.”); see Mila Sohoni, Agency Adjudication and
Judicial Nondelegation: An Article III Canon, 107 NW. U. L. REV. 1569, 1593 (2013) (“The cases where agency
adjudication cannot be conclusive—where review to an Article III court must be available on a direct appellate basis—
are private rights cases. In cases purely involving ‘public rights,’ the agency adjudication can be conclusive; direct
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 5 Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

encompasses disputes between private parties as well as government enforcement measures that
implicate life, liberty, and the imposition of fines, but not disputes about eligibility for public
benefits.203 Second, even for matters concerning benefits eligibility or other “public rights,” it is
questionable whether Congress may prohibit judicial review of constitutional issues.204 The
Supreme Court has generally interpreted statutory prohibitions on judicial review of agency
action, even when worded broadly, to permit review of constitutional claims in an effort to avoid
serious questions about the statutes’ constitutionality.205
5 U.S.C. § 555
Section 555 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code,206 entitled “Ancillary matters,” contains several rights
and limitations that apply to all adjudications—formal and informal—as well as other agency
matters, unless another statute overrides Section 555.207 These rights and limitations include the
following:
 a right to retain counsel for compelled appearances;208
 a party’s right to appear;209

appellate review by Article III courts in public rights cases could be eliminated.”).
203 Oil States, 138 S.Ct. at 1373 (2018) (“This Court has not ‘definitively explained’ the distinction between public and
private rights . . . .”); Sohoni, supra note 202, at 1585-86.
204 See Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Reawakening the Congressional Review Act, 41 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 187, 228 (2018)
(“The Supreme Court has been exceedingly reluctant to construe an act of Congress to deny a party any opportunity to
assert a constitutional claim. Reading a law in that manner would pose extraordinarily difficult constitutional issues
because it would amount to an attempt by Congress to legislate around the nation’s fundamental law by zoning out
federal constitutional claims.”) (citing Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988)).
205 Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988) (“[W]here Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional
claims its intent to do so must be clear. . . . We require this heightened showing in part to avoid the ‘serious
constitutional question’ that would arise if a federal statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a colorable
constitutional claim.”); Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 366-67 (1974).
206 5 U.S.C. § 555. In addition, 5 U.S.C. § 558 provides that an adjudicative “order [may not be] issued except within
jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.” Id. § 558(b). Section 558 also contains provisions
applicable to licensing proceedings. Id. § 558(c). As explained above, the APA defines “adjudication” as the “agency
process for the formulation of an order,” Id. § 551(7); see supra “What Is Agency Adjudication?” And, also mentioned
above, an “order” includes “licensing,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(6). Therefore, licensing is a form of adjudication under the
APA. See Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 1977) (“The APA specifically provides that
licensing proceedings . . . are adjudications.”).
207 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(a) (“This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except as otherwise provided by
[5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559].”), 559 (providing that a statute may “supersede or modify” the APA if “it does so expressly”);
compare Doe v. McAleenan, 415 F. Supp. 3d 971, 978 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (holding that the Section 555 right to counsel
likely applies to non-refoulment interviews conducted by DHS because no other statute overrides the Section 555 right
and therefore “the APA default provisions necessarily apply; to hold otherwise would be to render the default
provisions obsolete”); with United States v. Quinteros Guzman, No. 3:18-cr-00031, 2019 WL 3220576, at *10 (July 17,
2019) (no right to counsel during expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), because that
immigration statute overrides the APA provision); but see Bollow v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 650 F.2d 1093, 1101 (9th Cir.
1981) (reasoning that Section 555 did not apply because the proceeding at issue was excepted from the APA’s formal
hearing and judicial review provisions).
208 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“A person compelled to appear in person before an agency or representative thereof is entitled to
be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by other qualified
representative.”); see Sartain v. SEC, 601 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1979) (explaining that § 555(b) creates a “right to
retain independent counsel”). For a discussion of the constitutionality of statutory prohibitions on legal counsel during
agency proceedings, see supra text at notes 161-64.
209 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“A party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified
representative in an agency proceeding.”); see AmBuild Co., LLC v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 10, 20 (2014).
Congressional Research Service

26

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

 an interested person’s right to appear;210
 a requirement that a matter must conclude within a reasonable time;211
 a witness’s right to procure transcripts;212
 requirements for issuing subpoenas to parties;213 and
 required notice and reasons for denial of requests.214
Outside sources examine the contours of each of these rights and limitations in more depth.215
One overarching point warrants mention here. The Supreme Court has explained that Section 555
contains the “minimal requirements” for informal adjudication.216 That these requirements
address “ancillary matters”—not core elements of procedure, such as the format of a hearing—
makes plain that informal adjudication, unlike formal adjudication, is not subject to significant,
centralized regulation under the APA.217 If neither Section 555 nor another legally binding source
(including the Constitution) requires a certain set of procedures in an informal adjudication, then
courts may not impose such procedures on the agency.218 For example, Section 555 does not
create any rights to respond to or rebut unfavorable evidence.219 As such, an agency may conduct

210 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“So far as the orderly conduct of public business permits, an interested person may appear before
an agency or its responsible employees for the presentation, adjustment, or determination of an issue, request, or
controversy in a proceeding, whether interlocutory, summary, or otherwise, or in connection with an agency
function.”); see Block v. SEC, 50 F.3d 1078, 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
211 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and
within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.”); see Pub. Citizen Health
Rsch. Grp. v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 32 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
212 5 U.S.C. § 555(c) (“A person compelled to submit data or evidence is entitled to retain or, on payment of lawfully
prescribed costs, procure a copy or transcript thereof, except that in a nonpublic investigatory proceeding the witness
may for good cause be limited to inspection of the official transcript of his testimony.”); See United States v. Murray,
297 F.2d 812, 821 (2d Cir. 1962).
213 5 U.S.C. § 555(d) (“Agency subpenas authorized by law shall be issued to a party on request and, when required by
rules of procedure, on a statement or showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought.”).
214 Id. § 555(e) (“Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or
other request of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding. Except in affirming a prior
denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for
denial.”); Ardila Olivares v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 819 F.3d 454, 463 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
215 ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION, supra note 22, at 40-52; TOM C. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (1947). The Supreme Court often has given the Manual some
measure of deference due to the fact the Department of Justice “was heavily involved in the legislative process that
resulted in the [APA’s] enactment in 1946.” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 n.31 (1979); see, e.g., Norton
v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63 (2004) (explaining that the Court has often found the Manual
“persuasive”); Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 546 (1978) (referring to
the Manual as “a contemporaneous interpretation previously given some deference by this Court”).
216 Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 655 (1990).
217 See Butte Cty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“We have what is known as informal agency
adjudication. Governing procedural rules, derived mainly from § 555 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 555, and the Due Process
Clause, are few.”).
218 See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 496 U.S. at 653 (“[W]hen the Due Process Clause is not implicated and an
agency’s governing statute contains no specific procedural mandates, the APA establishes the maximum procedural
requirements a reviewing court may impose on agencies.”).
219 Butte Cty., Cal. v. Chaudhuri, 887 F.3d 501, 506 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“[I]n an informal adjudication, there is no
blanket obligation for an agency to allow the submission of rebuttal evidence at all.”).
Congressional Research Service

27

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

an informal adjudication without allowing rebuttal evidence unless another statute or due process
applies and requires otherwise.220
Conclusion
While there is broad consensus about the aims of agency adjudication—fairness, efficiency, and
satisfaction to the participants—adversarial and inquisitorial models prioritize these criteria
differently, and, as one commentator has observed, “the difficulty is that there is no available
theory for deciding which one or ones among the criteria should play a subordinated role.”221 The
prevalence and variability of informal adjudication raise an overarching issue for Congress:
whether, and to what extent, to “systematize” informal adjudication, either by subjecting more of
it to the APA’s formal adjudication requirements or by crafting a parallel set of detailed default
requirements for informal adjudication.222 Congress also routinely confronts more discrete policy
choices about specific, high-volume informal adjudication systems, including in the fields of
immigration and veterans benefits, to name some relatively recent examples.223 While perhaps no
authoritative playbook exists to guide Congress through its adversarial and inquisitorial options
on these discrete issues, Congress can use the extensive agency history with almost every type of
option to inform its legislative choices.224

Author Information

Ben Harrington
Daniel J. Sheffner
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney

220 Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 496 U.S. at 653 (rejecting arguments that in an informal adjudication, the agency must
notify a party “of the material on which it was to base its decision” and provide “an adequate opportunity to offer
contrary evidence”); Jurewicz v. USDA, 741 F.3d 1326, 1334-35 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (no right to a “meaningful
opportunity” to respond to agency analysis in reverse-FOIA informal adjudications); Sw. Airlines Co. v. TSA, 650 F.3d
752, 757 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (no right to respond to unfavorable consultant report in informal adjudication of TSA fees).
221 Id. at 742-43.
222 See Bremer, Reckoning with Exceptionalism, supra note 1, at 1792; ASIMOW, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION supra note 22, at 60; Verkuil, supra note 1, at 794 (discussing the concept of an “Informal
Administrative Procedure Act”).
223 See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1964-65 (2020) (discussing congressional
development of rapid inquisitorial procedures to determine the admissibility of aliens at the border); Monk, 978 F.3d at
1275 (legislative reforms to VA appeals process).
224 See supra note 92 (discussing ACUS publications that examine informal adjudication schemes).
Congressional Research Service

28

Informal Administrative Adjudication: An Overview

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46930 · VERSION 1 · NEW
29