Final, But Often Fallible: Recognizing Problems with Alj Finality

25 Pages Posted: 30 Jul 2004

See all articles by Jim Rossi

Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt University - Law School


This Article addresses how the legally final (i.e., immediately appealable) status of Administrative Law Judge decisions in many state systems of administrative governance with central panels (among them Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina) presents accountability problems. Especially given these problems, where reviewing courts defer to ALJ final orders on issues of law and policy, fundamental administrative law goals and values are undermined. Standards of review provide state courts with a way of restoring accountability. Specifically, when reviewing legally final ALJ orders, reviewing courts could restore accountability by heightening the deference they give to the agency's legal and policy positions - placing special weight on agency appellate briefs and giving little or no deference to the ALJ on these issues.

Keywords: Judicial Review, administrative law, central panels, state administrative procedure

Suggested Citation

Rossi, Jim, Final, But Often Fallible: Recognizing Problems with Alj Finality. Administrative Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 53-76, 2004, FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 117, Available at SSRN:

Jim Rossi (Contact Author)

Vanderbilt University - Law School ( email )

131 21st Ave S
Nashville, TN 37203-5724
United States
6153436620 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics