Administrative discretion

Last updated November 21, 2023

In public administration, administrative discretion refers to the flexible exercising of judgment and decision making allowed to public administrators.^[1]^[2] Regulatory agencies have the power to exercise this type of discretion in their day-to-day activities, and there have been cases where regulatory agencies have abused this power. Administrative law can help these agencies get on the path of following regulations, serve the public, and in turn, a reflection of the public's values and beliefs.

There is a need for administrative law because the interest of public could be at risk if various agencies were not following laws and regulations. Administrative law is important because without it, it could lead to arbitrary and unreasonable use of such discretion, which may lead to destruction of basic principles of administrative law.^{[ citation needed ]} Although this type of discretion isn't laid out in the job-description of a bureaucrat/public servant, it is necessary because citizens use these bureaucratic institutions every day; such as the D.M.V. , public schooling, and numerous others. Street-level bureaucrats have to deal with the provision of service as well as translating vaguely worded mandates into specific cohesive and comprehensive language to organize protocol.^[3]

Administrative discretion allows agencies to use professional expertise and judgment when making decisions or performing official duties, as opposed to only adhering to strict regulations or statuses. For example, a public official has administrative discretion when he or she has the freedom to make a choice among potential courses of action. The failure to exercise reasonable judgment or discretion is abuse of discretion.^[4]

"I think that in our system of government, where law ends, tyranny need not begin. Where law ends, discretion begins, and the exercise of discretion may mean either beneficence or tyranny, either justice or injustice, either reasonableness or arbitrariness."^[5]—Kenneth Culp Davis

History

The idea of administrative discretion dates back as far as the time of widely known Greek philosopher Socrates in his quest to lay the foundation for philosophical ethics. Socrates determined a general ranking of "universal morals" in order to piece together certain criterion that could test what course of action to take in any immediate situation. He assigned value orders as well as certain "means to ends" that would determine alternatives for ethical philosophical generalization.^[6] In doing so, Socrates was creating the first type of basis for administrative discretion.

When Andrew Jackson took office in 1829, the country was going through radical changes—the scale of government grew extensively which caused the need for an increase in the administrative activity. Jackson brought the bureaucratization of administration.^[7] He appointed his close friends to office to work in administered processes. This was known as the "spoils system", in which was a system was in place where presidential administrations had the power of hiring or firing federal workers; this brought a constant change in demands and routines for personnel. Of his additions to the administrative discretion and of bureaucracy as we know it today, one in particular, the creation of The Patent Reform Act of 1836 brought about the creation of new offices and adjudicatory administrative boards. Although, perhaps unknowingly, Jackson brought a new age to administrative discretion. Another president who has come in contact with administrative discretion is Madison. Known as Madison's Managers, drafted in 1787, some argue that early public administration literature had it right.^[2]

After Jackson, many presidents followed suit of his example—appointing members to administrative processes. In some cases, officials appointed by the presidents abused their powers in administration. There were attempts to control administrative discretion throughout the 19th century, but those attempts overall, failed. Political appointees believed they indeed were law themselves—Jesse Hoyt and his successor Samuel Swartwout for example, notoriously did not comply with the rule to return funds they had collected on behalf of the Federal Government.^[7] However, within the 20th century, substantial changes occurred that better formed the concept of administrative discretion as we know it today.

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal brought much needed relief to the public by implementing welfare programs in a dire time of crisis. There was a type of bureaucratic "sprawl": this era saw the creation of numerous agencies and boards. The birth of such a large bureaucracy, not only helped in aiding the public, but Roosevelt's programs also answered important question of who would be part of the bureaucracy and govern future welfare programs. The New Deal emphasized the importance of administrative discretion in government and their processes by expanding the staff of the White House and creating new managerial techniques for the executive.^[8]

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was created to govern the internal procedures of administrative agencies and how those agencies interact with the public. The act came about after the Attorney General appointed a committee to investigate the need for procedural reform.^[9] The notion of the time (not too far off-base of popular public notion today) was that various agencies were created by Congress over a long period of time in a piece-mail, haphazard manner. The view was that there was no uniformity in the chaotic bodies to administer anything. The 1946 act places policies on agencies' rule-making, adjudications, and licensing behavior. The intention was to make sure that the public is protected and safe, with secured proper entitlements.

Examples of administrative discretion in law

Goldberg v. Kelly —In this 1970 case, City officials were administrating and terminating public assistance benefits under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and/or under New York State's Home Relief Program in New York City. The problem arose as residents receiving financial aid claimed that the New York City officials overseeing and administering these programs terminated their aid without notifying them or holding a hearing. Recipients alleged that this was unconstitutional on the Administration's part because it denying them due process of law guaranteed under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (Case Briefs). In this case, Administrative Discretion resulted in individualized parameters of what was deemed necessary to convey a termination of aid, instead of a federal standard. The Holding of Chief Justice Warren Burger and the court sided with the appellants' view: a full hearing of evidence is required before a recipient can be denied/deprived of certain types of government benefits. In other words, a recipient must receive some sort of notice should their aid be changed/terminated; whether in writing or orally.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute--In this 1980 case, Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (or OSHA), The Secretary of Labor was required to explicitly state exposure risks/limits at the lowest level of carcinogens that would not impair viability of the industries regulated. However, this failed to happen. The Secretary did not say or record anywhere that exposure to the substance benzene at 10 ppm (parts per million) would cause leukemia and exposure to 1 ppm would not (Oyez cases). The holding of the Supreme Court, under Justice Warren Burger, concluded that there was a statute for a requirement of significant risk, and the Secretary and agency had failed to apply the act inappropriately.^[10] In this case, Administrative Discretion under the Secretary of Labor had not correctly interpreted the "extent feasible".

Citizens To Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v Volpe--In this 1971 case, in Memphis, Tennessee, a group of citizens claimed that The Secretary of Transportation made the decision to have construction of a highway where Overton Park was located and violated statutes enacted by the congress.^[10] The court holding under justice Burger upheld the "feasible and prudent" clause: wherein an alternative exists to circumvent building the proposed highway through the park. Furthermore, the Secretary's decision to use federal money for the highway did not comply with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

The IRS Tea Party Controversy : The IRS must exercise discretion in administering the tax law. The IRS oversees a vast system that affects nearly everyone. Since the law is complex and often difficult to interpret, the IRS must draw fine lines in order to properly interpret, apply, and enforce the law.^[11] The IRS claims it gave extra scrutiny to Tea Party-affiliated groups based solely on the name and goals of the groups. The IRS asked those groups invasive questions that were not normally asked of other groups: about their donor lists, affiliations and contacts with the media .^[12]

Administrative Discretion in Criminal Law Enforcement-- When a government official of law enforcement uses their own sense of ethical discretion such as not to or to invoke in criminal process.^[13] There are two major situational motivations of police discretion; whether police response is internally invoked or citizen initiated and whether it is a law enforcement of order maintenance situation. The two situational motivations combine to create four types of discretionary situations for law enforcement officials. The four different situations are proactive and reactive law enforcement and proactive and reactive order maintenance.^[14]

Modern day administrative discretion

In today's administrative discretion, some issues affect the way organizations function and the way the public feels towards administrations/agencies as a whole. In this way public administrators are seen as "moral agents"; they are given the task to exercise discretion, and reflect the society's values. In theory, the public expects administrators to be the exemplary role models of society and follow laws and regulations.

In reality, some do not think the administrators play fair and the public feels distrusts towards them. In a poll done by Gallup.com, the public showed an increase in the mistrust in government. People were asked if corruption was widespread throughout the government. The results recorded from 2006 to 2013 rose significantly; from 56% to 79%.^[15] The public may know little to nothing about the administration or their responsibilities, yet approval is very low. The lack of transparency can mean that an administration is not completely honest, secretly keeping hidden agendas: withholding information from public view. It can also simply mean that the administration does not attempt to make their information easy to access or understand for the public(regutoraly).

Related Research Articles

Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive branch agencies of government. Administrative law includes executive branch rule making, adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs. Over time, most equity courts merged with courts of law, and the adoption of various Acts granted courts combined jurisdiction to administer common law and equity concurrently. Courts of equity are now recognized for complementing the common law by addressing its shortcomings and promoting justice.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

The unitary executive theory is a normative theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive Power" of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted among legal scholars, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. Steven Calabresi and Christopher Yoo (2008) described the unitary executive theory as ensuring “… the federal government will execute the law in a consistent manner and in accordance with the president’s wishes.” This stands in contrast to other scholarly literature that stresses the fact that federal employees have to faithfully execute the laws enacted according to the process prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It substantially narrowed the Administrative Procedure Act's Section 701(a)(2) exception from judicial review. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots citizen movements to block government action.

The National Partnership for Reinventing Government(NPR) was a U.S. government reform initiative launched in 1993 by Vice President Al Gore. Its goal was to make the federal government "work better, cost less, and get results Americans care about". The initiative aimed to streamline processes, cut bureaucracy, and implement innovative solutions. NPR was active until 1998. During its five years, it catalyzed significant changes in the way the federal government operates, including the elimination of over 100 programs, the elimination of over 250,000 federal jobs, and the consolidation of over 800 agencies. NPR introduced the use of performance measurements and customer satisfaction surveys, and encouraged the use of technology. NPR is recognized as a success and had a lasting impact.

The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) is a federal drug enforcement program in the United States, overseen by the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the major drug trafficking operations and tackle related crimes, such as money laundering, tax and weapon violations, and violent crime, and prosecute those primarily responsible for the nation's drug supply.

Street-level bureaucracy is the subset of a public agency or government institution where the civil servants work who have direct contact with members of the general public. Street-level civil servants carry out and/or enforce the actions required by a government's laws and public policies, in areas ranging from safety and security to education and social services. A few examples include police officers, border guards, social workers and public school teachers. These civil servants have direct contact with members of the general public, in contrast with civil servants who do policy analysis or economic analysis, who do not meet the public. Street-level bureaucrats act as liaisons between government policy-makers and citizens and these civil servants implement policy decisions made by senior officials in the public service and/or by elected officials.

The Sandiganbayan is a special appellate collegial court in the Philippines that has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations. The special court was established by Presidential Decree No. 1486. It was subsequently modified by Presidential Decree No. 1606 and by Republic Acts 7975, 8249 and 10660. It is equal in rank to the Court of Appeals, and consists of fourteen Associate Justices and one Presiding Justice. The Office of the Ombudsman owns exclusive authority to bring cases to the Sandiganbayan.

Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was excepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.

Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) is the landmark United States Supreme Court administrative law decision that outlined the adjudicatory authority of administrative agencies under Article III of the Constitution. The Court held that the United States Employees' Compensation Commission satisfied Fifth Amendment Due Process and the requirements of Article III with its court-like procedures and because it invests the final power of decision in Article III courts.

Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. It is regarded as a form of illegality. An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body. If the High Court finds that a decision-maker has fettered its discretion, it may hold the decision to be ultra vires – beyond the decision-maker's powers – and grant the applicant a suitable remedy such as a quashing order to invalidate the decision.

Bureaucratic drift in American political science is a theory that seeks to explain the tendency for bureaucratic agencies to create policy that deviates from the original mandate. The difference between a bureaucracy's enactment of a law and the legislature's intent is called bureaucratic drift. Legislation is produced by elected officials, but is implemented by unelected bureaucrats, who sometimes act under their own preferences or interests. Bureaucratic drift is often treated as a principal–agent problem, with the House, Senate and Presidency acting as principals and bureaucracy acting as the agent. The government seeks to control bureaucratic drift in a number of ways, most notably congressional oversight and procedural controls.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

As stated by political scientist Samuel Krislov, representative bureaucracy is a notion that "broad social groups should have spokesman and officeholders in administrative as well as political positions". With this notion, representative bureaucracy is a form of representation that captures most or all aspects of a society's population in the governing body of the state. An experimental study shows that representative bureaucracy can enhance perceived performance and fairness. This study finds that in a “no representation” scenario, respondents reported the lowest perceived performance and fairness, while in scenarios such as “proper representation” or “over representation” of women, they reported higher perceived performance and fairness.

Kenneth Culp Davis was an American legal scholar remembered as "the father of administrative law." He was a professor of law at West Virginia University from 1935 to 1939, at the University of Texas at Austin from 1940 to 1948, at Harvard University from 1948 to 1950, at the University of Minnesota from 1950 to 1960, at the University of Chicago from 1961 to 1976, and at the University of San Diego from 1976 until his retirement in 1994.

A criminal referral or criminal recommendation is a notice to a prosecutory body, recommending criminal investigation or prosecution of one or more entities for crimes which fall into that body's jurisdiction.

The administrative state is a term used to describe the power that some government agencies have to write, judge, and enforce their own laws. Since it pertains to the structure and function of government, it is a frequent topic in political science, constitutional law, and public administration.

References

↑ Rabin, J. (2003). "Administrative Discretion". Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. New York: Dekker. p. 35.
1 2 Cann, Steven (July 2007). "The Administrative State, the Exercise of Discretion, and the Constitution". Public Administration Review. 67 (4): 780–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00760.x.
↑ Sowa, Jessica E.; Selden, Sally Coleman (November 2003). "Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy". Public Administration Review. 63 (6): 700–710. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00333.
↑ "Administrative Discretion". West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
↑ Davis, Kenneth C. (1969). Discretionary Justice: A preliminary inquiry. LSU Press.
↑ Leys, Wayne A. R. (Winter 1943). "Ethics and Administrative Discretion". Public Administration Review. 3 (1): 10–23. doi:10.2307/973098. JSTOR 973098.
1 2 Mashaw, Jerry L. (1 June 2008). "Administration and "The Democracy": Administrative Law from Jackson to Lincoln, 1829-1861". The Yale Law Journal. 117 (8): 1568–1693. doi:10.2307/20454693. JSTOR 20454693.
↑ Morone, J. A. (1998). The Democratic Wish: Popular participation and the limits of American government. Yale University Press.
↑ Marble, R. D. (1948). "Federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946". Mississippi Law Journal. 20: 62.
1 2 Shapiro, M. (1982). "Administrative Discretion: The Next Stage". Yale Law Journal. 92 (8): 1487–1522. doi:10.2307/796185. JSTOR 796185. Archived from the original on May 20, 2015.
↑ Kahng, L. (2013). "The IRS Teas Party Controversy and Administrative Discretion" (PDF). Cornell Law Review Online. 99: 41–55.
↑ Korte, G. (13 May 2013). "Q&A: The IRS-Tea Party scandal explained". USA Today. Retrieved 2015-04-13.
↑ Goldstein, Judith (22 May 2009). "International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American "unfair" trade laws". International Organization. 50 (4): 541–564. doi:10.1017/s0020818300033506. S2CID 154317471.
↑ Reiss, Albert J. (Autumn 1984). "Consequences of Compliance and Deterrence Models of Law Enforcement for the Exercise of Police Discretion". Law and Contemporary Problems. 47 (4): 83–122. doi:10.2307/1191688. JSTOR 1191688.
↑ Clifton, Jon (July 2014). "Americans Less Satisfied With Freedom". Gallup.