Judicial Review Board

Quasi-judicial review boards are increasingly used by government agencies and self-regulatory agencies (“SROs”) to enforce administrative actions.   The trend is largely beneficial.   Regulatory issues are often complex.  Specialized ‘courts’ potentially enable disputes to be resolved quickly and efficiently.  

Efficiency, however, carries a risk that due process may be circumscribed.  An independent judiciary, for example, is crucial to the administration of justice.   Regulatory agencies that appoint hearing officers or otherwise control adjudication procedures may jeopardize confidence in the process.  

Agencies that exercise all three governmental functions – legislative, executive, and judicial – by making regulations, administering regulations, and adjudicating regulations walk a particularly fine line.   Such power may easily be abused.  

When such power is abused, small companies are more disadvantaged than large.  Entrepreneurs, of limited resources, are especially vulnerable.  Resulting miscarriages of justice harm not only defendants.  Confidence in the agency is eroded.  And, society at large may be harmed if economic activity or productivity is unduly suppressed.  

To address the need, the Due Process Institute helped organize an independent third party forum – the Judicial Review Board (“JRB”).  Its hearings are held by three ‘hearing officers’ with knowledge of:  

§  the regulations in question;

§  enabling legislation underlying the regulations; and,

§  the larger public interest served by the regulations.

In exceptional circumstances, JRB may protect hearing officers by withholding their identity.