Administrative Agencies under Fire

Abstract

The legal jargon of the day continues to be embellished by the phrase absolutism. ' Bar associations are exhorted to stop its growth. Legislative committees are urged to initiate measures to curb its spread. The legal profession is warned that the adoption of unconstitutional doctrines by administrative agencies threatens to produce a bureaucracy that will destroy it'; at the same time, it is informed that administrative law now and in the future offers the greatest opportunity for the practitioner. What occasion is there for this beating of the drums? Specifically, what agencies are indulging in unconstitutional practices or encouraging the spread of unconstitutional doctrines? What are those practices and doctrines and, if they are being indulged in, have our courts no power under existing law to protect the rights of persons threatened thereby? What remedy do the critics propose and is it sound? If not, is there any program upon which sincere advocates for improvement in the functioning of such agencies can unite? It is the purpose here to point out briefly: (i) That criticism of practices followed by administrative agencies should be specific instead of being couched in terms of generalities and should indicate wherein the appropriate courts of review are powerless to prevent the abuses complained of. (2) That the remedy frequently proposed by some outspoken critics, namely, an all-inclusive code of practice and procedure for federal administrative agencies is unworkable, and has been rejected after a careful, comprehensive study by an eminent committee of lawyers. (3) That the report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure presents a sound program for orderly improvement in the functioning of these agencies and the legal profession should support the committee's recommendations.