Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief judge of Administrative Law Court outlines scope, case volume and staffing pressures
Summary
Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph K. Anderson III briefed the House Legislative Oversight Committee on the court’s jurisdiction, caseload (about 2,000 cases a year plus 6,000 motor vehicle hearings) and a key staffing/pay challenge.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph K. Anderson III told the House Government Efficiency and Legislative Oversight Committee that the Administrative Law Court hears a broad mix of contested cases, appeals and specialized matters and that the court’s workload and jurisdiction have expanded since it was created in 1993.
Anderson said the court now splits roughly half of its work between trial (contested cases) and appellate review, and described the court’s range of matters as including contested proceedings, appellate review of agency decisions, injunctive relief, enforcement actions (including contempt), regulation hearings and declaratory-judgment actions. He noted that the Office of Motor Vehicle Hearings handles implied-consent, habitual-offender, financial-responsibility and point-suspension matters; that office hears more than 6,000 cases annually while the Administrative Law Court itself handles roughly 2,000 cases a year.
When asked about case intake and processing, Anderson said cases are filed by agencies or individuals and that an electronic filing system is in a voluntary phase; the court intends to make e-filing mandatory after ironing out problems. On backlog, he said most delays reflect ordinary case development—discovery and preparation for trial—and that some individual administrative cases can involve very large sums (he cited tax cases and one involving Amazon estimated at $100 million).
On challenges, Anderson told members the court’s biggest operational problem is competitive salaries and keeping staff; he said at times the court has fewer than its statutory complement of six judges. He also explained that appeals of agency decisions are governed by a ‘‘substantial evidence’’ standard: when an appeal is based solely on the administrative record the court cannot substitute its judgment for the agency’s if reasonable facts support the agency’s determination.
Committee members asked about e-filing, backlogs and whether respondents perceive the court as biased toward agencies; Anderson responded that perceptions of deference often reflect the limited standard of review for agency appeals, not a court preference for agencies. He said the court welcomes further questions and will share details with members when requested.
