On the Record or Out of Luck: The Adjudication Spectrum
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
概要
When an agency decides your case, what kind of process do you get?
Sometimes it’s a full trial-type hearing with witnesses, cross-examination, an independent decisionmaker, and a written opinion. Other times it’s a paper review and a short explanation.
In this episode, we map the adjudication spectrum under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — from “straight to your room” to a full family meeting.
What We Cover
- The difference between formal and informal adjudication
- The “magic words” that trigger full procedural protections: “on the record after opportunity for agency hearing”
- Why most agency decisions — roughly 90% or more — are informal
- What formal adjudication actually includes:
- Notice
- Right to counsel
- Presentation of evidence
- Cross-examination
- Decision based exclusively on the record
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
- Why the APA says almost nothing about informal adjudication
- The “black hole” of informal process
- How due process, organic statutes, and agency regulations fill the gap
- Why courts generally cannot impose extra procedures beyond what the APA requires (Vermont Yankee)
- The massive volume problem: millions of decisions, only about 2,000 ALJs
- The justice gap created by delay and procedural filtering
Key Cases
- United States v. Florida East Coast Railway A statute that says “hearing” is not enough. Without the magic words, you don’t get formal adjudication.
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC Courts cannot add procedural requirements beyond those required by statute.
Real-World Examples
- Passport applications
- Social Security disability determinations
- Immigration interviews
- Student loan discharge decisions
- Borrower defense claims
- Public Service Loan Forgiveness
The same APA framework governs all of them.
Why This Matters
Your rights depend on where you fall on the spectrum — and you don’t get to choose.
Formal hearings are expensive and slow. Informal decisions are fast but thin. The system is built around tradeoffs: speed versus accuracy, efficiency versus fairness.
For many people, the informal stage filters out their claim before they ever reach a hearing. The structure of the system — not just the merits of the case — often determines the outcome.