Select Page

Administrative Law
University of Iowa School of Law
Bonfield, Arthur E.

Admin Outline

1)      Administrative Law Background
a)      Administrative agencies
i)        Agencies that affect and determine private rights
ii)      They are departments, boards, and commissions
iii)    There are federal, state, and local agencies
iv)    They are bodies other than the legislature that define private rights
b)      What do agencies do
i)        There are two basic types of agencies
(1)   Regulatory and benefactory
ii)      Make rules
iii)    Adjudicate
iv)    Prosecute
v)      Investigate
c)      State administrative law
i)        Public health, safety, grant and benefit programs are administered through state administrative law
ii)      Differences between state and federal level
(1)   State agencies and their constituencies are generally smaller than federal agencies
(2)   State agencies are generally headed by part timers, unlike federal agencies
(3)   State agencies are not as well financed and have less technical expertise
(4)   State agencies usually deal with less educated and affluent people than federal agencies
(5)   The public affected at the state level are less likely to appear with a lawyer
(6)   Economic value is greater at federal level
(7)   Legal framework is different
(a)    in the state level, some agency heads are directly elected
(b)   in the state level, some agencies are created by the constitution
(c)    state constitutions are different than federal constitutions – example: some state constitutions allow a legislative veto
2)      Administrative Procedure Acts (APA)
a)      Statutory codes of procedure that regulate administrative processes
b)      Object of APAs
i)        They are there to seek as much uniformity as possible in agency procedures
ii)      Provide adequate protection of private rights
iii)    Be in sync with the body politic
iv)    Must balance all three of these objects with the need for efficient, economical, and effective government
c)      APAs are general rules designed to cover all the agencies. They address:
i)        Access to the content
ii)      Rules and procedures
iii)    Adjudication procedure
iv)    Judicial, legislative, and executive review of agency action
d)     Relationship of APAs to other statutes:
i)        §559 – “This act does not limit or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law.” This means that the APA is a floor not a ceiling in the rights that it imposes. It also means that the APA applies to every agency. There is only exemption for an agency if a statute expressly exempts if from the APA.
ii)      §17A.23 – The Iowa APA applies to all agencies and there can only be exemptions if another statute mentions the IAPA by name.
e)      Definitions of Agency
i)        §551(1) – Agency means everything, but the courts and congress. The United States Supreme Court has also said that it does not include the president – congress did not intend the president to be review by this act.
ii)      17A.2(1) – Does not mean: generally assembly, the judicial branch, or any of its components, the office of the consumer advocate, the governor, or any political subdivision of the state of its offices and units. Political subdivision of the state means that local governments, school boards, cities, and county governments are excluded.
3)      Procedures required by the constitution when an administrative agency takes action defining rights, duties or privileges of a particular person/ what procedures are required when agencies adjudicate:
a)      *14th amendment due process applies to the states, and 5th amendment due process applies to the federal government*
b)      Why do people want an opportunity for some kind of hearing?
i)        Opportunity to present their side of the story
ii)      Delay agency action
iii)    Have a record for appeal
iv)    Gives bargaining power to a person that may otherwise be powerless
v)      Ensure that the agency is following the law
vi)    Get at the truth
vii) Ensure you are being treated with respect/agency has thought about the matter/make sure agency is acting in the public interest
c)      Goldberg v. Kelly (pre-termination hearing required for welfare benefit termination)
i)        Facts: Prior to this case, there was a right privilege doctrine.  If the government chose to give you something that they did not have to give you, then you had no due process rights to it. The process that New York had for terminating welfare benefits before this case was that the caseworker would discuss termination with the recipient and if the caseworker decided to revoke then the caseworker would send the recipient a letter notifying him of the revocation. Then the person is allowed to send a letter stating why he thinks he should not be revoked. He is not allowed to present witnesses, put on a case, etc, but they do allow post-termination hearings.
ii)      Issue: whether or not a person receiving welfare benefits can have those benefits terminated without a pre termination hearing. 
iii)    Holding: Because New York had created an entitlement by statute, those entitled to receive it have a property interest in welfare and can not have that taken away without the due process of law. 
iv)    Balancing test: Court says that in order to determine whether a pre-termination hearing is necessary, we need to balance the potential loss to the individual if the government is wrong against the government’s interest in proceeding without a prior hearing
v)      The hearing must be at a meaningful time and conducted in a meaningful manner – right to counsel, right to cross examination, right to reason for the decision.
d)     De Minimus Doctrine:
i)        An interest is not protected, because the interest is so small that there is no harm to the individual
ii)      ISU case – professor was accused of sexual harassment – the university’s response was to continue salary, but take him out of class and contact with students while an investigation took place. The university did not tell anyone. Iowa S. Ct. said that it is de minimus
e)      Board of Regents v. Roth
i)        Facts: University decided not to rehire a professor that had a one-year term of fixed employment. The contract said that he was hired for 12 months and then that was the end. The University did not give him reasons why he was he was not rehired or a hearing.
ii)      Holding: there is no liberty or property interest in a 12 month fixed term of employment when a professor is not rehired.
iii)    Where do liberty interests come from
(1)   Positive law, the constitution, and natural law
iv)    Where do property interests come from
(1)   A person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it to have a property right
(2)   Created by positive law
(3)   common law, administrative rule, contract with the state, statute
(4)   property interests are not created by the constitution
f)       Deprived v. Denied
i)        You cannot get a hearing when you are denied something you apply for, because the application itself is the hearing.
ii)      To have an entitlement you must be able to point to some specific species of law that gives you that property/liberty interest.
g)      Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
i)        Facts: respondents worked for cities in Ohio. One was a security guard, the other was a bus mechanic. By law, the could only be discharged for cause. They were discharged without any opportun

to health, safety, welfare requiring immediate action & the only action that can be taken is to avoid the immediate danger
c)      If you have due process in a criminal proceeding – you do not get it in an administrative proceeding. i.e. If you are found guilty of something and you get your license taken away – you can’t challenge that. The hearing is in your criminal proceeding to determine whether or not you are guilty. If someone is found not guilty of DUI the DMV can still go after them to take their license away, because the purpose is not for punishment, it is for protection.
d)     Sum
i)        Some interests may be protected by are de minimus – no due process
ii)      Some interest are an entitlement like Goldberg – full Perry Mason hearing
iii)    Interest that is not de minimus – Matthews balancing to see how much process you get
5)      Elements of a Hearing
a)      Interest that is not de minimus -You use Matthews balancing to determine how much process you get
i)        Goss (disciplinary suspension – student has right to be told and opportunity to respond, but no lawyers/cross examination, etc) – using Matthews balancing, the court determined that a student who was to be suspended for less than 10 days was entitled to some for of hearing, he needs notice and an opportunity to present his kind of the story. The student does not have the right to secure counsel and confront and cross examine witnesses. you don’t really need a hearing if you are suspended for less than 10 days, all you really need is an oral conversation where student is told and have a right to respond. There are constant punishments of a small nature – In Goss, the court is saying: 1) there is an entitlement, because a student has a right to be in school, 2) up to a 10 day suspension is not de minimus, 3) some process applies. Now, think about Matthews – the cost of providing procedures that the court talks about in Goss, would be very large. If the punishment does not quickly follow the offense, it does not have much meaning
ii)      Board of Curators, Univ of Mo. v. Horowitz (academic expulsion – test is the hearing) – student thought she deserved a hearing before she was kicked out of school for academic reasons, the court said that the exam was the hearing.
iii)    Ingraham v. Wright – (right to sue in tort is sufficient in the paddling context) student is not entitled to a hearing in the context of non abusive paddling, because it is not a deprivation of liberty. The court says that all due process requires is the right to be able to sue in tort after the mistaken paddling.
Waters v. Nat’l Association of Radiation Survivors – court considered a statute that limits an attorney’s fees to $10 in a veteran’s benefit case. Therefore, the statute prevents veterans from retaining counsel at the informal benefits hearings, conducted by the VA. Using Matthews balancing, the court upheld the statute. The court uses Matthews balancing and says that the benefit of having