In pursuit of this goal, the APA created the position of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within the federal government. The APA provides that when a statute requires an agency adjudication to be determined on the record, an ALJ or the agency head must preside. The first duty is to preside over the taking of evidence at agency hearings and act as the finder of facts in the proceedings. In all of these regards, ALJs, who are executive branch employees, function much like trial judges in the judicial branch. For instance, three bills in the 96 th Congress— S. 262 , H.R. Although there is ample precedent for using non-ALJs to conduct administrative adjudication in the federal agencies, there are significant differences between ALJs and non-ALJs in terms of independence, training, experience, and compensation that may affect how these two types of hearing officers review administrative appeals.
Administrative law judges (ALJs) preside at formal adjudicatory and rulemaking proceedings conducted by executive branch agencies. ALJs make decisions in these proceedings, and their administrative determinations must be based on the record of trial-type hearings. An ALJ's function as an independent, impartial trier of fact in agency hearings is comparable to the role of a trial judge presiding over non-jury civil proceedings. Although there are many ALJs working in state government, this report describes the role of federal ALJs, with a specific focus on the mission, responsibilities, and appointment of such ALJs. This report also discusses the differences between ALJs and non-ALJ hearing examiners who conduct administrative adjudication in federal agencies.
In the 111th Congress, several bills have been introduced regarding ALJs, including H.R. 2850, S. 372, and S. 1228.