Due Process and Delegation: ‘Due Substance’ and Undone Process in the Administrative State

61 Pages Posted: 15 Jun 2017

See all articles by Ronald A. Cass

Ronald A. Cass

Center for the Rule of Law; Cass & Associates, PC; Boston University School of Law; George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Date Written: June 15, 2017

Abstract

Due process as a notion of basic fairness has deep roots and broad intuitive appeal. It is a guarantee, stretching back at least to Magna Carta, that government’s most feared impositions on those within its reach — using coercive powers to take away our lives, our liberty, or our property — can only be accomplished through processes that have qualities of regularity and impartiality under rules adopted through mechanisms that historically carried the hallmarks of legitimacy, generality, and neutrality. The same instincts that underlie due process guarantees also inform the structural protections that are the central features of our Constitution. The goal under either label is to protect liberty by regulating the way government goes about setting and applying legal rules.

The intuitive appeal of the notion of “due process,” however, at times has obscured the limited reach of the core concept, which is restricted in both what it applies to and what it requires. Transformation of due process from that core to a looser constraint that can be shaped to fit particular notions of good governance has produced serious failures, both encouraging episodes of judicial adventurism that invade space reserved to electoral-representative processes (the story of “substantive due process”) and weakening protections against inappropriate exercises of official discretion.

Reliance on softer notions of due process may be especially problematic in respect to questions of administrative process, which often lie outside the ambit of appropriate due process constraints. Even where due process does apply, other legal rules strongly influence the degree to which administrative processes work and frequently provide better avenues for constraining them. Addressing directly the problematic nature of many delegations of authority to administrators and of inappropriate judicial deference to administrative determinations by and large will be preferable to due process challenges to administrative action. Due process can be a complement to reinvigorated delegation constraints and reformed deference rules or a partial substitute — used to compensate for failure to properly reform those doctrines — but it is at best a “second best” option.

Keywords: Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Delegation, Due Process, Separation of Powers, U.S. Supreme Court

JEL Classification: K23

Suggested Citation

Cass, Ronald A., Due Process and Delegation: ‘Due Substance’ and Undone Process in the Administrative State (June 15, 2017). George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-11, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2987140 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2987140

Ronald A. Cass (Contact Author)

Center for the Rule of Law ( email )

9907 Georgetown Pike
Suite 148
Great Falls, VA 22066
United States
703-438-8832 (Phone)

Cass & Associates, PC ( email )

10560 Fox Forest Drive
Great Falls, VA 22066
United States
703-438-7590 (Phone)
703-438-7591 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.cassassociates.net

Boston University School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
123
Abstract Views
1,312
Rank
424,479
PlumX Metrics