List of court cases relevant to procedural rights

* The Administrative State
* Administrative State Index
* Ballotpedia's Five Pillars
* Agency control
* Executive control
* Judicial control
* Legislative control
* Public control
* Educational opportunities related to the administrative state
* The Checks and Balances Newsletter
* March 2026
* February 2026
* January 2026
* December 2025
* November 2025
* October 2025
* September 2025
* August 2025
* July 2025
* June 2025
* May 2025
* April 2025
* March 2025
* February 2025
* January 2025
* December 2024
* November 2024
* October 2024
* September 2024
* August 2024
* July 2024
* June 2024
* May 2024
* April 2024
* March 2024
* February 2024
* January 2024
* December 2023
* November 2023
* October 2023
* September 2023
* August 2023
* July 2023
* June 2023
* May 2023
* April 2023
* March 2023
* February 2023
* January 2023
* December 2022
* November 2022
* October 2022
* September 2022
* August 2022
* July 2022
* June 2022
* May 2022
* April 2022
* March 2022
* February 2022
* January 2022
* December 2021
* November 2021
* October 2021
* September 2021
* August 2021
* July 2021
* June 2021
* May 2021
* April 2021
* March 2021
* February 2021
* January 2021
* December 2020
* November 2020
* October 2020
* September 2020
* August 2020
* July 2020
* June 2020
* May 2020
* April 2020
* March 2020
* February 2020
* January 2020
* December 2019
* November 2019
* October 2019
* September 2019
* August 2019
* July 2019
* June 2019
* May 2019
* April 2019
* March 2019
* February 2019
* January 2019
* December 2018
* November 2018
* October 2018
* September 2018
* August 2018
* July 2018
* June 2018
* May 2018
* April 2018
* Tracking
* Administrative state legislation tracker
* Changes to the Federal Register
* Historical additions to the Federal Register
* Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules
* Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act
* Noteworthy federal agency rules
* Terms and definitions
* Glossary of administrative state terms
* Deference
* Judicial deference
* Skidmore deference
* Auer deference
* Chevron deference
* Rulemaking
* Formal rulemaking
* Informal rulemaking
* Hybrid rulemaking
* Proposed rule
* Final rule
* Comment period
* Ex parte communications
* Judicial review
* Nondelegation doctrine
* Adjudication
* Administrative law judge
* Due process
* Federalism
* Guidance
* Executive agency
* Independent federal agency
* More terms and definitions
* Laws and statutes
* Administrative Procedure Act
* Civil Service Reform Act
* Congressional Review Act
* Regulatory Flexibility Act
* REINS Act
* Securities Act of 1933
* Truth in Regulating Act
* Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
* More laws and statutes
* Executive orders
* Jimmy Carter
* Presidential Executive Order 12044 (Jimmy Carter, 1978)
* Ronald Reagan
* Presidential Executive Order 12291 (Ronald Reagan, 1981)
* Presidential Executive Order 12498 (Ronald Reagan, 1985)
* Bill Clinton
* Presidential Executive Order 12866 (Bill Clinton, 1993)
* Presidential Executive Order 13132 (Bill Clinton, 1999)
* George W. Bush
* Presidential Executive Order 13258 (George W. Bush, 2002)
* Presidential Executive Order 13422 (George W. Bush, 2007)
* Barack Obama
* Presidential Executive Order 13497 (Barack Obama, 2009)
* Presidential Executive Order 13563 (Barack Obama, 2011)
* Presidential Executive Order 13610 (Barack Obama, 2012)
* Donald Trump (first term)
* Presidential Executive Order 13765 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13771 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13772 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13777 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13781 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13783 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13789 (Donald Trump, 2017)
* Presidential Executive Order 13836 (Donald Trump, 2018)
* Presidential Executive Order 13837 (Donald Trump, 2018)
* Presidential Executive Order 13839 (Donald Trump, 2018)
* Presidential Executive Order 13843 (Donald Trump, 2018)
* Joseph Biden
* Presidential Executive Order 13990 (Joe Biden, 2021)
* Presidential Executive Order 13992 (Joe Biden, 2021)
* Presidential Executive Order 14003 (Joe Biden, 2021)
* Presidential Executive Order 14018 (Joe Biden, 2021)
* Presidential Executive Order 14025 (Joe Biden, 2021)
* Donald Trump (second term)
* Executive Order: Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Eliminating Waste and Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Consolidating Procurement (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Deregulatory Initiative (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Implementing The President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Eliminating the Federal Executive Institute (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Council To Assess The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Reforming The Federal Hiring Process And Restoring Merit To Government Service (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Establishing And Implementing The President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency” (Donald Trump, 2025)
* Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce (Donald Trump, 2025)
* More executive orders
* Agencies
* Executive departments
* Dept. of State
* Dept. of Defense
* Dept. of Justice
* Dept. of the Treasury
* Dept. of Homeland Security
* Dept. of Education
* Dept. of Health and Human Services
* Dept. of Labor
* Dept. of Veterans Affairs
* Dept. of Transportation
* Dept. of Energy
* Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
* Dept. of the Interior
* Dept. of Agriculture
* Dept. of Commerce
* Executive agencies
* Office of Management and Budget
* U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
* U.S. Civil Service Commission
* Independent agencies
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Small Business Administration
* Administrative Conference of the United States
* Federal Communications Commission
* Federal Trade Commission
* Court cases
* Auer v. Robbins
* Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
* Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
* Humphrey's Executor v. United States
* Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
* More court cases
* Administrative state legislation tracker
* Research
* 50-State Research: Fiscal Analysis in Rulemaking
* 50-state research: Legislative oversight of executive agency rulemaking

Five Pillars of the Administrative State

* * *

Procedural rights
Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.

## Contents

* 1 Court cases related to due process
* 2 Court cases related to standing
* 3 Explore more pillars
* 4 See also
* 5 Footnotes

Procedural rights encompass debates about individual due process and standing before administrative agency adjudication and enforcement actions. Procedural rights also include citizen access agency rulemaking processes and decision making proceedings. Procedural rights and due process are core concepts within the Public Control pillar, one of the five pillars Ballotpedia uses to understand the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.

The following page contains two tables. The first table lists court cases about due process rights within the administrative state. The second table contains court cases related to standing.

## Court cases related to due process[edit]

This table contains major state and federal court cases related to due process.

Cases relevant to due process

Case  | Court  | Year  | Impact
Holmes & Ketcham v. Walton | 1780 | New Jersey Supreme Court | Court held proceedings and statute unconstitutional for failing to provide a jury
Ten Pound Cases | 1787 | Inferior Court of Common Pleas of Rockingham County, NH | Court held proceedings and statute unconstitutional for failing to provide a jury
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 518 | 1819 | U.S. Supreme Court | Daniel Webster, a lawyer in the case, argued that the law of the land provision in the New Hampshire Constitution was the same as a requirement for due process
Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 | 1855 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that due process of law meant the same thing as by the law of the land in Magna Carta and cited early state constitutions as evidence
The Slaughter House Cases | 1873 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state
Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. 505 | 1873 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that lawyers may not lose their licenses to practice law without a hearing
Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 | 1878 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that jury trials are not always required by due process standards where personal or property rights are involved
Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265 | 1883 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that procedures count as due process if they are “suitable and proper to the nature of the case, and sanctioned by the established customs and usages of the courts”
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 | 1884 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that anything that upheld principles of liberty and justice to further the general public good must be held to be due process of law
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 | 1889 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that immigration was a privilege and not subject to due process restrictions
McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 | 1892 | Supreme Court of Massachusetts | Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that public employment is a privilege not protected by due process
Allgeyer v. Louisiana | 1897 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court rejected the idea that liberty only meant that citizens had a right to be free from physical restraint
Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 | 1897 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that deprivation of property violates due process if done without a trial
Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 | 1903 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that immigrants were entitled to procedural due process protection before deportation
United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161 | 1904 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that people who did not appeal final immigration decisions could not acquire a right to a judicial hearing under habeas corpus by claiming citizenship
Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 | 1904 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that jury trials are not always required by Due Process standards where personal or property rights are involved
United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 | 1905 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that due process is when an executive or administrative officer acts within the powers given to them by Congress
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 | 1905 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
Central of Georgia Ry. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127 | 1907 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that taxpayers must have a fair opportunity for a hearing related to tax collection
Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 | 1908 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that sometimes the right to a fair hearing implies a right to oral argument
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 | 1908 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that American courts relied on Edward Coke to say that due process of law was equivalent to the law of the land provision in Magna Carta
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 | 1908 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
Londoner v. City of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 | 1908 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that taxation of property without adjudication violates due process
Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 | 1908 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that administrative rulemaking was exempt from procedural requirements of due process
Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272 | 1912 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that findings of fact by an executive officer after a summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive
ICC v. Louisville & N. Ry., 227 U.S. 88 | 1913 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 | 1915 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that administrative rulemaking was exempt from procedural requirements of due process, especially when the rule applied to more than a few people because it would be impractical for every person to participate in the adoption of the rule
Butler v. Perry | 1916 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice McReynolds argued that Fourteenth Amendment liberty referred to common law fundamental rights
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 | 1920 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that decisions made based on a record that omitted relevant evidence was not a fair hearing
Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287 | 1920 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that due process means constitutional questions about agency actions require de novo review
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 | 1922 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that a person held for deportation is entitled to a day in court if he denies he is an alien
Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U.S. 557 | 1922 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that taxpayers must have a fair opportunity for a hearing related to tax collection
Meyer v. Nebraska | 1923 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court articulated an expansive definition of liberty
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 | 1923 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that depriving someone of liberty without a proper trial violates due process
Adkins v. Children's Hosp., 261 U.S. 525 | 1923 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that fundamental rights of liberty and property receive substantive due process protection against regulation
United States v. Abilene & S. Ry., 265 U.S. 274 | 1924 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230 | 1926 | U.S. Supreme Court | Case involving the irrebuttable presumption doctrine
Western Chem. Co. v. United States, 271 U.S. 268 | 1926 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld an administrative order following proceedings where there was evidence admitted that would be inadmissible in a court
Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312 | 1926 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Due Process Clause requires “that state action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions and not infrequently are designated as ‘law of the land.’”
Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 | 1926 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a CPA admitted to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals could not lose that privilege without a hearing
Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 | 1927 | Tennessee Supreme Court | Court held that states are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment when dealing with its own employees engaged in state work.
United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commission of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103 | 1927 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that immigrants were entitled to procedural due process protection before deportation
Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 | 1927 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court did not require agencies to use juries during adjudication
Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589 | 1931 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that seizing personal property as payment for debt is legal if a hearing is available after the collection
Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 | 1932 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that questions about the jurisdiction of an agency require de novo review by courts
Hamilton v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 293 U.S. 245 | 1934 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that attendance at college was a privilege not subject to due process protections
St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38 | 1936 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that due process required courts to exercise independent judgment on the facts when reviewing an order by the Secretary of Agriculture setting maximum rates for stockyard services
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 | 1937 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court did not require agencies to use juries during adjudication
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 301 U.S. 292 | 1937 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that agency decisionmaking had to meet the procedural standards of civil trials and that only certain questions could be definitively answered by agencies
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 | 1937 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that fair procedures were a fundamental right that supported ordered liberty
Margan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that in the case of a quasi-judicial proceeding between a person and the government people have a right to be advised of what the government proposes and to be heard before any final action
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld as due process instances where the charges and findings varied
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a union was entitled to notice and the opportunity to participate in the proceedings when the National Labor Relations Board sought to void an agreement
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbldg. Corp., 303 U.S. 41 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that administrative remedies had to be exhausted before a person may seek judicial review on the merits
California Comm'n v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that access to the courts is essential to deciding questions about the constitutional or statutory authority of agencies
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 | 1940 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that procedure is the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by law and for justly administering remedy and redress when those rights and duties are violated
Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126 | 1941 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that due process does not require a hearing at the initial stage of the administrative process so long as a hearing is held before the agency’s final order becomes effective
Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 | 1944 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that Congress could provide for judicial review after regulations and orders become effective and still comply with due process in a war emergency situation
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 | 1948 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that summary executive action to deport an enemy alien during war was consistent with due process and the law does not require courts to decide whether any hearing provided was sufficient
FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265 | 1949 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court did not require oral argument as a component of a fair hearing
Bailey v. Richardson | 1950 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld a D.C. Circuit decision that said the First Amendment does not guarantee government employment
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33 | 1950 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that when the U.S. Constitution requires a hearing it must be fair and held before a tribunal that meets current standards of impartiality; also held that a hearing in front of a tribunal that doesn’t meet the impartiality standards of the APA might violate due process
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 | 1951 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion that outlined several factors for courts to balance when deciding due process questions
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 | 1952 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that an Oklahoma law was an assertion of arbitrary power that offended due process
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 | 1953 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that resident aliens held for deportation were entitled to procedural due process
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 | 1953 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held consistent with due process the practice of excluding returning resident aliens without a hearing on the basis of secret information
United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1 | 1953 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that it was sufficient due process for a person to receive a resume of adverse evidence from the FBI during an auxiliary hearing
Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U.S. 535 | 1954 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that administrative exhaustion is not required when an agency’s action is allegedly unconstitutional or beyond the scope of the agency’s authority
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 | 1954 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the U.S. attorney general could not circumvent department procedures that allowed requests to suspend deportation to go before the Board of Immigration Appeals first
Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 | 1954 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that there was no right to have a license to practice medicine
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 | 1955 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court invalidated a finding by a board that relied on informants and that did not allow the claimant to cross-examine them
Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 | 1955 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that an individual was entitled to a fair summary of the material in an FBI report on him
Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 | 1955 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the law and regulations implicitly required the Department of Justice to give individuals copies of adverse recommendations from the civil service appeal board so that they could make adequate replies
In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133 | 1955 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 | 1956 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice Frankfurter argued in a concurring opinion that due process is “the least frozen concept of our law” and that it can absorb the progressive social standards of modern society
Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 | 1956 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld using secret informers in hearings to suspend deportation proceedings
Slochower v. Board of Higher Educ., 350 U.S. 551 | 1956 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that invoking the Fifth Amendment is not evidence of guilt, so firing an employee on that basis violates due process
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 | 1956 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that Congress had not empowered the FDA to apply a loyalty program to an inspector
In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 | 1957 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld secret proceedings of an Ohio fire marshal and sustained a prison sentence even though lawyers had been excluded from the process
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 | 1957 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that denying a person permission to take the bar exam because of her arrest record, use of aliases, and past Communist Party membership, but without evidence of bad moral character, violates due process because it is arbitrary and irrational
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 | 1957 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a state legislature’s delegation of power to the attorney general was so broad that it was impossible to tell whether he was following the rules the legislature had established
Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 | 1957 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that regulations for State Department loyalty-security dismissals must be followed even in the case of a dismissal that would have happened for other reasons too
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 | 1958 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Secretary of State was not given unlimited discretion to grant or withhold passports for citizens
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 | 1959 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court described decisions under the Due Process Clause as being based on an inquiry into the fundamental principles of society, which include a tribunal trained to make such decisions operating with safeguards for impartiality and detachment
Anonymous v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287 | 1959 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld a prison sentence even though lawyers were excluded from the process of investigation
Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 | 1959 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that security dismissal regulations must be followed when a department begins proceedings under them even when it could have simply fired the employee for other reasons
Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 | 1959 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Department of Defense was not authorized by Congress to deny security clearances based on confidential information
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 | 1960 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld procedures during a purely fact-finding investigation that did not allow cross-examination of witnesses
Gonzales v. United States, 364 U.S. 59 | 1960 | U.S. Supreme Court | Upheld the process in a case that did not allow the defendant to challenge certain evidence or consult certain records
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 | 1960 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld terminating Social Security benefits for deported immigrants because the termination followed a valid general law
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 | 1961 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not require a trial-like hearing for every case where the government impairs a private interest
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.) | 1961 | 5th Circuit | Court held that due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a tax-supported college may expel a student for misconduct
Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 | 1961 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that denial of admission to the bar based on a failure to answer questions is not a denial of due process
In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82 | 1961 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that denial of admission to the bar based on a failure to answer questions is not a denial of due process
Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96 | 1963 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that an unsuccessful bar applicant was denied due process when the Committee on Character & Fitness never allowed him to cross-examine those who spoke ill of him
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 | 1963 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that denying unemployment benefits to a Seventh-Day Adventist who refused work on a Saturday violated the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment
Hornsby v. Allen, 26 F.2d 605 (5th Cir.) | 1964 | 5th Circuit | Court ruled that uncontrolled discretion invites abuse and that officers of the government have to follow prescribed standards and make adjudications on the basis of merit
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 | 1964 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that loyalty oath requirements from the State of Washington were invalid because unduly vague, uncertain, and broad
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 | 1966 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that laws fail to meet due process requirements when they are so vague and standardless that they allow judges and jurors to decide what is prohibited and not in each particular case without any legally fixed standard
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 | 1966 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that juveniles have due process rights
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 | 1967 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court rejected the right-privilege distinction approach to deciding due process cases
Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1 | 1968 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court set precedent that "no explicit statutory provision was necessary to confer standing, since the private utility bringing suit was within the class of persons that the statutory provision was designed to protect"
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 | 1968 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a disbarred lawyer was denied due process when he was denied fair notice of new charges against him after proceedings began
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 | 1968 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice John Harlan in a dissenting opinion described due process as fundamental fairness
McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 | 1969 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that some exceptions to the requirement of administrative exhaustion arise because there are no benefits that would come from continued administrative processes
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 | 1969 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a board of inquiry’s identification of violators of criminal law violated due process
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 | 1970 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a plaintiff seeking standing must allege an “injury in fact” and demonstrate that their interest is "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question” (the zone of interest test)
Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280 | 1970 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that California had to provide a hearing prior to termination of old-age benefits
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 | 1970 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that welfare recipients were entitled to a hearing before the state could terminate their benefits
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 | 1971 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court allowed hearsay evidence to support agency determinations during administrative proceedings so long as it is shown to be reliable and there is an opportunity for the claimant to cross-examine the witnesses
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 | 1971 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that if a state issued licenses, those licenses could not be revoked without the procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment
Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 | 1971 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a state law allowing local officials to post notices in liquor stores forbidding selling liquor to certain people drinking excessively violated due process because those targeted by the law did not get a hearing or notice
Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 | 1971 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that individuals had a right to due process when facing dismissal from public employment
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that employees must meet a threshold showing of a protected liberty or property interest to make a due process challenge
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that teacher who claimed tenure was entitled to an opportunity to establish that he had tenure, which would require school officials to give him a hearing where he could learn why they were not rehiring him and could challenge their reasons
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that when the Executive Branch exercises discretion to reject the visa of a communist based on a legitimate reason, courts will not look behind the exercise of that discretion or use a balancing test with the First Amendment
Norlander v. Schleck, 345 F. Supp. 595 | 1972 | United States District Court for the District of Minnesota | Court ruled that a person who was removed from the waitlist for a civil service position because of confidential bad references was denied due process because she had no notice of the basis for removal nor the opportunity to refute that basis
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a claimant must prove that his ability to obtain the truth was severely prejudiced in order to claim a denial of due process
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the nature of an interest determines whether due process requirements apply and decided that informal hearings were required before ending a criminal’s parole
Gagnuon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a probationer is entitled to a hearing when losing probation, but not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer
Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Case upholding general, uniform administrative rules
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that rulemaking constitutes legislative judgments by agencies while adjudication concerns agency actions that implicate due process protections; held that formal rulemaking is only required when a statute calls for a hearing “on the record”
Weinberger v. Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court affirmed the expediency and desirability of replacing individual adjudication with general rules
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 | 1974 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld seizure of a yacht by Puerto Rican transportation officials without notice and a hearing
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 | 1974 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court was divided over the source of constitutionally-protected liberty and property interests
NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 | 1974 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court suggested that agencies making retroactive changes through adjudication might violate due process if there had been a good faith reliance on the earlier order
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 | 1974 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that legislative use of irrebuttable presumption against pregnant teachers was unconstitutional
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 | 1974 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a prison could not create the right to good-time credits and then deny them to inmates without minimum procedures
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 | 1975 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not necessarily violate due process by creating an unconstitutional risk of bias
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 | 1975 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court looked at property rights to determine what level of due process applied
Montanye v. Haymes | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require a hearing prior to the transfer of prison inmates
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Case upholding general, uniform administrative rules
Kelley v. Johnson | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a county regulation limiting policeman's hair length did not violate due process
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court introduced a balancing test to determine what process is due in a given situation and limited Goldberg v. Kelly by denying a general right to a pre-termination hearing for disability benefits
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 786 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that the government’s interest in administrative efficiency has some weight in determining what process, if any, is due
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that citizens do not have an absolute entitlement to public employment or benefits but that the legislature may recognize certain interests to trigger due process protections
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that prisoners did not have due process protection when state prison officials transferred them between facilities without prior notice and a hearing because the relevant law gave officials complete discretion to transfer prisoners
Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 | 1977 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge to uphold an Illinois statute that allowed the secretary of state to suspend or revoke drivers' licences without a preliminary hearing
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 | 1977 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that corporal punishment of children deprives them of liberty and requires adequately minimum procedural protections
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 | 1978 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the U.S. Constitution requires a search warrant for an administrative search to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 | 1978 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that public utilities could not terminate service except for good and sufficient cause
Webster v. Redmond, 599 F.2d 793, 801-02 (7th Cir. 1979) | 1980 | 7th Circuit | Court held that no one can claim that they have suffered a due process violation without a deprivation of a liberty or property right
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 | 1980 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Due Process Clause created the right to avoid being stigmatized by government activity
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 | 1981 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a prisoner had no due process claim against prison officials who lost a hobby kit that he had ordered
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 | 1982 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a legal cause of action was a kind of property protected by the Due Process Clause
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 | 1983 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that liberty interests protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can come from the Due Process Clause or state laws
Olim v. Wakinekona, 103 S. Ct. 1741 | 1983 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court upheld prisoner transfer because the regulations governing that transfer did not trigger Due Process Clause protections
Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 | 1984 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that an Ohio civil servant was entitled to notice and a pre-termination hearing before losing his job
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 | 1992 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that Article III forbids Congress from granting standing to citizens to bring suit if they have not suffered a demonstrable injury; court applied the zone of interest test to limit access to standing
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 | 1997 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court developed a two-part test to determine what qualifies as a final agency action for the purposes of judicial review: the final agency order must have exhausted all internal agency appeals and must either determine “ ‘rights or obligations” or result in legal consequences resulting in hardship
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 | 2001 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that aliens within the U.S. have some due process protections and that Congress must give clear indications to authorize indefinite detention of undocumented aliens
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 | 2003 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court limited the ruling in Zadvydas and said the Due Process Clause did not require the government to employ the least burdensome means to deport aliens
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 | 2004 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that the government may not detain a U.S. citizen enemy combatant overseas indefinitely without the ability to offer evidence that he is not an enemy; also, the court held that a combatant must be given notice of the factual basis for holding him and a fair chance to rebut that evidence before a neutral decision-maker and be allowed to consult an attorney
Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 | 2008 | 9th Circuit | Case where citizens argued that the exclusion of an alien impinged upon the citizens’ due process rights
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. ___ | 2015 | U.S. Supreme Court | Five justices agreed that it did not violate due process rights of a U.S. spouse to deny an immigrant visa to her husband without explanation because he was found inadmissible under a provision of immigration law related to terrorism

## Court cases related to standing[edit]

This table contains major cases from England, U.S. states, and federal courts related to standing.

Cases relevant to standing

Case  | Court  | Year  | Impact
Arthur v. Commissioners of Sewers, 88 Eng. Rep. 237 (K.B. 1724) | 1724 | English Court | Court held that strangers who were not parties to a case could still seek discretionary judicial relief
Attorney Gen. v. Bucknall, 26 Eng. Rep. 600 (Ch. 1741) | 1741 | English Court | Court said anyone, even remote from the case, could bring suits in the name of the attorney general
Rex v. Brown | 1789 | English Court | Court allowed strangers to enforce acts of Parliament since such acts were of interest to everyone in the kingdom
Zylstra v. Corporation of Charleston, 1 S.C.L. (I Bay) 382 | 1794 | South Carolina Court | Court issued a writ of prohibition requested by a stranger
State v. Justices of Middlesex, 1 NJ.L. 283 | 1794 | New Jersey Court | Court allowed a citizen action
State v. Corporation of New Brunswick, 1 N.J.L. 450 | 1795 | New Jersey Court | Court rejected the idea that courts should reject citizen requests unless they show that they will be affected by the outcome
Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 171 | 1829 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court treated a writ of prohibition against an allegedly unconstitutional tax as a constitutional case
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343 | 1875 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court allowed citizens to bring a petition for mandamus
Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212 | 1905 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court said that people have been allowed to bring suits based on interests created by statutes for hundreds of years in England and since the foundation of the United States
Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24 | 1907 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court refused to stop payments for the Panama canal because the plaintiff in the case showed no interest and the court held that that kind of relief would be extraordinary
Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 | 1922 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court dismissed a challenge to the process behind ratification of the 19th Amendment
Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 | 1923 | U.S. Supreme Court | U.S. Supreme Court denied standing to a taxpayer seeking to sue over expenditures he thought violated the commerce clause
Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 | 1936 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion opposing a constitutional attack by appealing to what we now call standing
Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 | 1937 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court denied standing to a private individual unless he could show he has more than a general interest in the result of a government action beyond that shared by the rest of the public
Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 | 1938 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a private electric company lacked standing to challenge federal loans offered to competitors
Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118 | 1939 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court described the kind of legal rights subject to judicial protection if violated by an agent of the executive branch
Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 | 1940 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that a person had standing to challenge administrative action if he had a claim on the merits
FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 | 1940 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that a station had standing to challenge the grant of a license to a competitor under the Federal Communications Act
United States ex rel Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 541 n.4 | 1943 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court said that laws have allowed people with no interest in the controversy other than that created by a statute to bring suits for hundreds of years in England and from the beginning of the United States
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 | 1944 | U.S. Supreme Court | First U.S. Supreme Court case to mention standing as an Article III limitation
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 | 1951 | U.S. Supreme Court | Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in a concurring opinion that American courts follow the same approach to standing as colonial and English courts at the time of the founding
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 225 F.2d 924 | 1955 | D.C. Circuit | Court denied standing to utility companies who claimed they would suffer competitive harm if the federal government fulfilled certain power contracts made with other companies
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965 | 1965 | 2nd Circuit | Court held that those with an interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development could sue to challenge a hydroelectric project
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994 | 1967 | D.C. Circuit | Court ruled that people affected by government decisions could sue to challenge those actions
Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1 | 1968 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court set precedent that "no explicit statutory provision was necessary to confer standing, since the private utility bringing suit was within the class of persons that the statutory provision was designed to protect"
Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redev. Agency, 395 F.2d 920 | 1968 | 2nd Circuit | Court ruled that people affected by government decisions could sue to challenge those actions
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 | 1968 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court gave a federal taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending that supported denominational schools
Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 | 1970 | D.C. Circuit | Court held that an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract had standing to sue the winner because the award violated law and regulations
Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 | 1970 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that plaintiffs did not need to show a legal interest or legal injury to establish standing and that standing existed for those who could show an injury in fact within the zone of interests related to a regulatory statute
Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 | 1970 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court allowed those who were aggrieved or adversely affected in a way related to a regulatory statute to sue even without legal authorization
Bivins v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 | 1971 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that the Fourth Amendment creates a private right of action, which allows people to sue to vindicate their Fourth Amendment rights
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that a person be injured in fact by the government action for him to have standing
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that tenants of an apartment complex had statutory standing to sue over racial discrimination
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Decision allowed public interest plaintiffs to have standing to challenge administrative action
Linda R.S. v. Richard D, 410 U.S. 614 | 1973 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court denied the mother of an illegitimate child standing to sue the local prosecutor for not initiating child support proceedings against the father of the child
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 | 1975 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that plaintiffs must show a nexus between the benefit to the plaintiff and the proposed relief the court might grant to establish standing
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 | 1976 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court denied standing to indigent people protesting a change in tax policy that reduced the amount of services hospitals had to provide to the indigent
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 33 | 1977 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court articulated standards for associations to claim standing
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 5 | 1978 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court ruled that an environmental organization, a labor union, and some people who lived near nuclear power plants under construction had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law governing federally licensed nuclear power plants
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 | 1978 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that Bakke faced an injury, which gave him standing, from the fact that he could not compete for all places in a medical school class because of his race
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 | 1982 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that standing is not recognized for those with merely generalized grievances
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 | 1982 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that Congress created a legal interest for those testing for housing discrimination to sue violators
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 | 1984 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that parents of black children attending public schools working through desegregation did not have standing to challenge tax deductions that went to segregated private schools
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 | 1989 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court endorsed standing for people challenging environmentally harmful construction in the area where they live
Air Courier Conference of Am. v. American Postal Workers Union, 111 S. Ct. 913 | 1991 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court denied standing on zone-of-interest grounds
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130 | 1992 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that more is needed to establish standing when a plaintiff challenges governmental regulation, or lack of regulation, of someone else
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman | 1996 | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | Court granted standing to plaintiffs claiming that they suffered aesthetic harm by seeing primates kept in what they believed were inhumane conditions in a zoo
Tozzi v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | 2001 | D.C. Circuit | Court found that Health and Human Services (HHS) could be liable for harms caused by the actions of third parties taken in reaction to HHS’s allegedly arbitrary decision to list a chemical as a known carcinogen
Barnum Timber Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | 2011 | 9th Circuit | Court held that a plaintiff had standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the agency's allegedly arbitrary approval of a list under the Clean Water Act
Thole v. U.S. Bank | 2020 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court found that people get the right to sue in court when they can establish a concrete stake in the outcome of a case which reaffirmed limits on who can challenge actions taken by administrative agencies
United States v. Texas | 2023 | U.S. Supreme Court | Court held that states lack standing to challenge the scope of the executive branch's immigration enforcement because the separation of powers limits the judicial branch from directing executive branch enforcement discretion

## Explore more pillars[edit]

* Five pillars of the administrative state: nondelegation
* Five pillars of the administrative state: judicial deference
* Five pillars of the administrative state: executive control of agencies
* Five pillars of the administrative state: agency dynamics

## See also[edit]

* List of scholarly work pertaining to procedural rights
* List of legislation relevant to procedural rights
* Administrative state
* Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
* Administrative State Index

## Footnotes[edit]

v • e

The Administrative State

Main|

The Administrative State Project main page • Administrative State Project Index • Glossary of administrative state terms • Quotes about the administrative state • Administrative state • Rulemaking • Deference • Adjudication • Nondelegation doctrine • Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker

Pillars|

Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control • Legislative control • Public control

Reporting|

Changes to the Federal Register • Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules • Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act • Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016

Laws|

Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Cases|

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States

Terms|

Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large

Bibliography|

* "Administrative Law - The 20th Century Bequeaths an 'Illegitimate Exotic' in Full and Terrifying Flower" by Stephen P. Dresch (2000)
* "Confronting the Administrative Threat" by Philip Hamburger and Tony Mills (2017)
* "Constitutionalism after the New Deal" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987)
* Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787)
* "From Administrative State to Constitutional Government" by Joseph Postell (2012)
* "Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule (2002)
* "Rulemaking as Legislating" by Kathryn Watts (2015)
* "The Checks & Balances of the Regulatory State" by Paul R. Verkuil (2016)
* "The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano (2017)
* "The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis" by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007)
* "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" by Gary Lawson (1994)
* "The Study of Administration" by Woodrow Wilson (1887)
* "The Threat to Liberty" by Steven F. Hayward (2017)
* "Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law" by Richard A. Epstein (2008)

Agencies|

Administrative Conference of the United States • United States Civil Service Commission • U.S. Government Accountability Office • U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs • U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates