June 20, 2025 By Cindy Alia
Where should justice stand? Should it take a back seat to so called expediancy of administrative adjudication? Where should the people carry the weight of decision making in any adjudication?
CAPR has long focused on Administrative Act reform, but this long standing opportunity to protect and reinstate our constitutionally protected freedoms has been side-lined by the political grandstanding of the state legislature. If at some point in time a legislature would focus on our freedoms and promote their protections over the issue based bickering that has been displayed over the recent years, it could lead to a better resolution of improving our economy, our medical health, our financial freedom. We have promoted bills that should be legislation in order to raise the bar on constitutional protection from agency over-reach. We look toward the day when these improvements become statute. Certainly the longer it takes to reform, the more necessary and important those reforms.
Here is an explaination of why our Administrative State misses the boat when floating on the ship of agency over-reach.
The Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs how state agencies resolve disputes, from agricultural violations to environmental penalties. While designed to ensure fair hearings, the APA’s reliance on administrative law judges (ALJs) raises serious concerns about its compatibility with constitutionally protected rights, particularly the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution’s Seventh Amendment and Washington’s Constitution (Article I, Section 21).
Under the APA, agencies like the Washington State Department of Agriculture and the Pollution Control Hearings Board use ALJs to adjudicate cases involving fines, license suspensions, or other sanctions. These hearings occur without juries, prioritizing agency efficiency over traditional judicial processes. For example, a farmer facing penalties for pesticide misuse or a business fined for environmental violations must navigate an administrative process where the agency often acts as both prosecutor and judge. This structure can limit access to a jury trial, a cornerstone of justice for legal remedies like monetary penalties.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases involving legal remedies, and while it doesn’t directly bind states, its principles highlight the APA’s flaws when cases intersect with federal jurisdiction. Washington’s own Constitution similarly protects jury trials in civil matters, yet the APA channels disputes into non-jury tribunals, with appeals limited to record reviews in courts, not de novo jury trials. This setup risks denying individuals their constitutional right to have penalties decided by an impartial jury, especially when fines resemble civil judgments.
Moreover, the APA’s use of agency-affiliated ALJs raises Fifth Amendment due process concerns. When the same agency prosecutes and adjudicates, impartiality can be compromised, undermining fair hearings. These issues demand attention from lawmakers, legal advocates, and citizens who value constitutional protections.
It’s time to scrutinize the APA’s impact on jury trial rights. Washingtonians deserve a system that upholds their constitutional guarantees, ensuring disputes are resolved not by agency insiders but by impartial courts and juries when asked for or needed. Let’s push for reforms to align administrative processes with the principles of justice enshrined in our federal and state constitutions.
June 20, 2025