Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_38_issue_2?pg=50
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:14:40+00:00

Document:
252 See 5 U.S.C. § 554(d); Groiler v. F.T.C., 615 F.2d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 1980) (“by forbidding adjudication by persons engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions, Congress intended to preclude from decision-making in a particular case not only individuals with the title of “investigator” or “prosecutor,” but all persons who had, in that or a factually related case, been involved with ex parte communication, or who had developed, by prior involvement with the case, a will to win”); Elliott v. S.E.C., 36 F.3d 86, 87 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[a]n agency may combine investigative, adversarial, and adjudicative functions, as long as no employees serve in dual roles”) (emphasis added); Girard v. Klopfenstein, 930 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1991) (validating a procedural hearing where investigative and adjudicative functions were not merged); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45–46 (1950) (finding a due process violation where a hearing was conducted by members of an administrative agency’s investigative branch). 253 See Withrow, 421 U.S. at 58 (“the combination of investigative adjudicative functions does not, without more, constitute a due process violation”). See also, e.g., In re Seidman, 37 F.3d 911, 925 (3d Cir. 1994) (using an actual bias test for adjudicators who have served investigative functions in financial oversight body hearings); Simpson v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 29 F.3d 1418, 1424 (9th Cir. 1994) (initiation of charges against claimant by director of financial oversight body did not render director unable to act as impartial decision-maker at claimant’s hearing); Hirrill v. Merriweather, 629 F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1980) (“[w]ithin the context of public administrative law and procedure, a claimant or litigant is not denied a constitutionally guaranteed fair hearing before an impartial tribunal simply because the agency factfinders or decision-makers may have had some prior knowledge or even preliminary participation in the case”). See generally Roland M. Frye, Jr., Restricted Communications at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 59 ADMIN. L. REV. 315 (2007); but see Finer Foods, 274 F.3d at 1140 (finding that even informal adjudications under the APA require impartial decision-makers “without a stake in the outcome”).
254 Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 471.
255 See supra note 253.
257 Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 486.

References: § 554
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.