Role of ACUS in procedural innovation
🔷 What Is ACUS?
The Administrative Conference of the United States is an independent federal agency that brings together government officials, private sector experts, academics, and practitioners to recommend improvements to administrative processes.
Established: 1964 (disbanded in 1995; reauthorized in 2010)
Role: Advises on procedural reforms in rulemaking, adjudication, and other administrative processes.
Output: Recommendations, model rules, and best practices, which federal agencies often voluntarily adopt.
🔷 Procedural Innovation by ACUS
ACUS has been instrumental in areas such as:
Streamlining rulemaking procedures
Improving notice-and-comment rulemaking
Enhancing transparency and public participation
Encouraging alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Standardizing adjudication practices
Promoting digital access and e-government tools
Although ACUS recommendations are not legally binding, they influence judicial thinking and administrative practice—and courts frequently refer to ACUS reports when interpreting procedural fairness.
🔷 CASES WHERE ACUS INFLUENCED PROCEDURAL LAW
Here are six detailed examples of cases in which ACUS’s recommendations or research either influenced the court’s reasoning or reflected the very procedural issues under discussion.
1. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978)
Issue:
Did the D.C. Circuit err in imposing procedural requirements on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission beyond what the APA required?
ACUS Influence:
ACUS had recommended restraint in judicial imposition of extra-procedural requirements. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that courts may not impose procedural innovations unless mandated by statute or Constitution.
Key Quote (SCOTUS):
“Agencies are free to fashion their own rules of procedure unless otherwise constrained.”
Significance:
This case directly aligns with ACUS's emphasis on respecting agency procedural autonomy within statutory boundaries. ACUS studies on rulemaking procedures were cited in discussions leading up to the ruling.
2. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Issue:
To what extent should courts engage in substantive review of agency decision-making under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard?
ACUS Connection:
While ACUS was still relatively new at the time, its early reports recommended clarifying standards for judicial review and improving the quality of the administrative record. The Overton Park decision emphasized record-based review, a concept ACUS continued to promote through later recommendations.
Significance:
Helped shape how courts require agencies to create full and transparent administrative records, an area where ACUS continues to push for procedural innovation.
3. United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973)
Issue:
Was a formal, trial-like hearing required under the APA for a rulemaking process conducted by the ICC?
ACUS Influence:
The Court ruled that the APA’s formal adjudication provisions (Sections 556 and 557) don’t apply unless explicitly required. ACUS had made similar arguments that not all rulemakings need trial-like procedures, advocating for flexible, cost-effective methods.
Significance:
This case validated informal rulemaking as the norm, which ACUS has long supported through its studies and best-practice recommendations.
4. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974)
Issue:
How thoroughly must courts review the rationality of agency decisions?
ACUS Connection:
The Court emphasized that courts must ensure agencies provide reasoned explanations for their actions, which ties directly to ACUS’s efforts to standardize and clarify statement of basis and purpose in rulemaking.
Significance:
Reflected ACUS’s early advocacy for transparency and reasoned decision-making, which later became standard expectations in administrative law.
5. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Issue:
Does an agency need to follow notice-and-comment procedures when changing an interpretive rule?
ACUS Influence:
ACUS has long supported distinguishing interpretive rules from legislative rules and clarifying when public comment is required. The Court emphasized that unless a rule is legislative, no notice-and-comment is required to revise it—echoing ACUS's recommendations.
Significance:
This case reasserted agency flexibility in issuing interpretive guidance—an ACUS priority.
6. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990)
Issue:
Did the agency violate procedural due process by reinstating pension plan obligations without formal rulemaking?
ACUS Connection:
This case touched on due process in informal adjudication, a long-standing ACUS concern. ACUS had recommended clearer procedural safeguards in informal agency actions, including notice and explanation.
Outcome:
While the agency was upheld, the Court emphasized the need for minimal procedural safeguards, consistent with ACUS’s proposals for informal adjudication.
🔶 Other Areas of ACUS Influence (Outside Case Law but Notable)
E-Rulemaking:
ACUS recommended digitizing public participation processes before many agencies adopted regulations.gov.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Adjudication:
Recent ACUS recommendations have addressed fairness and transparency in agency AI use.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
ACUS promoted ADR in the 1990s, leading to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (1990), reducing litigation costs.
Plain Language in Agency Communication:
ACUS backed initiatives to require agencies to explain rules in language the public can understand.
🧠 Conclusion: The Role of ACUS in Procedural Innovation
| Feature | ACUS Contribution |
|---|---|
| Rulemaking Innovation | Advocates best practices for notice-and-comment, interpretive rules, and hybrid procedures |
| Adjudication Reform | Promotes fairness in informal and formal adjudication |
| Judicial Influence | Courts often echo ACUS recommendations, especially on procedural flexibility and transparency |
| Legislative Impact | Influenced statutes like the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and ADR Act |
| Technological Modernization | Pushed early for e-rulemaking and digital participation |
ACUS helps agencies navigate the complex intersection of law, efficiency, and public accountability. Courts have repeatedly engaged with the same issues ACUS studies, sometimes directly referencing its recommendations or adopting its principles implicitly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments