Administrative law judge

ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) requires that federal ALJs be appointed based on scores achieved in a comprehensive testing procedure, including a four-hour written examination and an oral examination before a panel that includes an Office of Personnel Management representative, an American Bar Association representative, and a sitting federal ALJ.

Agency officials may not interfere with their decision-making, and administrative law judges may be discharged only for good cause based upon a complaint filed by the agency with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) established and determined after an APA hearing on the record before an MSPB ALJ.

In Lucia v. SEC, decided in June 2018, the Supreme Court held that ALJs are Inferior Officers within the meaning of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

ALJs usually hire Attorney Advisors, who serve a role similar to judicial law clerks of Article III judges.

Relevant statutes usually require a party to exhaust all administrative appeals before they are allowed to sue an agency in court.

[6] The California Administrative Procedure Act created an early central panel in 1945, and it served as a model for other states.

In some state law contexts, ALJs have almost no power; their decisions are accorded practically no deference and become, in effect, recommendations.

[8] In some agencies, ALJs dress like lawyers in business suits, share offices, and hold hearings in ordinary conference rooms.

In other agencies (especially certain offices of the Division of Workers' Compensation of the California Department of Industrial Relations), ALJs wear robes like Article III judges, are referred to as "Honorable" and "Your Honor", work in private chambers, hold hearings in special "hearing rooms" that look like small courtrooms, and have court clerks who swear in witnesses.

[13] In 2023, the case of SEC v. Jarkesy raised the issues of whether the use of ALJ factfinding as a replacement for a jury trial violates the Seventh Amendment and the nondelegation doctrine.

[14] In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that the SEC's use of ALJs in administrative proceedings for regulatory violations analogous to securities fraud violates the Seventh Amendment because there was a right to a jury trial in fraud actions at common law, then refused to decide any other issues.

[22] In 2013, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had by far the largest number of ALJs at over 1,400, who adjudicate over 700,000 cases each year.