Legal Definitions - informal adjudication

Informal adjudication refers to a decision-making process used by government administrative agencies that is less structured and formal than a traditional court trial or a "formal adjudication." While it still involves an agency making a binding decision that affects individuals or organizations, it does not follow the strict procedural rules set out in the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal law that governs how federal administrative agencies propose and establish regulations and how they conduct adjudications. For "formal adjudications," the APA requires specific, trial-like procedures, including hearings where evidence is presented "on the record." However, these strict APA rules only apply when a specific statute explicitly requires an agency's decision-making process to be "on the record."

When a statute does *not* mandate an "on the record" proceeding, the agency's decision-making process is considered an informal adjudication. In these cases, the procedures are instead guided by:

• The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires fundamental fairness (like notice and an opportunity to be heard).
• The agency's own internal rules and regulations.
• Specific statutes passed by Congress that might outline particular safeguards for that agency's informal processes.

Because the APA's strict rules don't apply, the specific procedures for informal adjudications can vary significantly from one agency to another, ranging from simple document reviews to more elaborate hearings that still fall short of formal trial standards. Despite their informality, these processes must still provide basic procedural protections to ensure fairness.

Here are some examples of informal adjudication:

• State Professional Licensing Board Decision: Imagine a state board responsible for licensing medical doctors receives a complaint alleging a doctor engaged in unprofessional conduct. The board initiates an investigation and, based on its findings, decides whether to suspend or revoke the doctor's license. The process might involve notifying the doctor of the complaint, allowing them to submit a written response, and perhaps an informal meeting with a board committee. However, it typically wouldn't involve a full, trial-style hearing with formal rules of evidence and cross-examination as mandated by the federal APA for formal adjudications.

  How it illustrates informal adjudication: This is an administrative agency (the state medical board) making a decision that significantly impacts an individual's professional livelihood. The procedures are defined by state law and the board's own regulations, not the federal APA's strict "on the record" requirements. Despite its informality, the process must still provide basic fairness, ensuring the doctor has a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, as required by the Due Process Clause.

• Federal Grant Application Denial: A small non-profit organization applies for a competitive federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund a community development project. After reviewing numerous applications, HUD denies the non-profit's request, citing specific reasons related to the project's feasibility. The non-profit then seeks to appeal this denial through HUD's internal review process.

  How it illustrates informal adjudication: Here, a federal administrative agency (HUD) is making a decision (denying a grant) that affects an organization. The process for reviewing grant applications and handling appeals of denials is typically established by HUD's own internal rules and specific federal statutes related to that grant program. It is not usually a formal, trial-like proceeding where evidence is presented "on the record" in the way the Administrative Procedure Act defines for formal adjudications. Nevertheless, the agency must provide some level of procedural fairness, such as clearly stating the reasons for the denial and offering a mechanism for the non-profit to request reconsideration or an internal review, adhering to the principles of due process.