Opinion ID: 1349774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: due process and other claims

Text: The Judge contends that the Commission combines investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicative roles, in violation of his right to procedural due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [19] That contention is not well taken. The Commission follows a fairly standard administrative law model of contested case adjudication, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that, without more, this administrative adjudication paradigm does not violate due process. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-47, 52, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464, 1467, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975) (citing 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 175, § 13.02 (1958)). Moreover, the Commission has no independent authority to discipline a judge; its recommendations are reviewed de novo by this court, which is the final adjudicative authority. Or. Const., Art. VII (Amended), § 8(1)(e); ORS 1.425(6). We hold that the operation of the Commission did not deprive the Judge of federal procedural due process. The Judge also argues that the Commission failed to provide him with adequate notice and an opportunity to defend, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process of law and Commission rule, and that the Commission denied him his right to equal privileges and immunities under Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. [20] We have considered those arguments and find them unpersuasive.