Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)

Administrative law judges are the federal officials who preside over formal hearings within executive agencies — deciding everything from Social Security disability claims to SEC enforcement actions to immigration cases — often with appeals reaching the federal court system — with their procedural recommendations often shaped by ACUS. The approximately 2,000 ALJs across the federal government handle millions of cases annually, making them the judges most Americans are likely to encounter. ALJs have special independence protections: they can be removed only for good cause determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board, reflecting their unique place in the federal civil service, and they must be assigned to cases in rotation — ensuring they aren't rewarded or punished for their decisions.

Current Law (2026)

Parameter	Value
Governing statute	Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 556–557, 3105, 7521)
Number of federal ALJs	~2,000
Largest employer	Social Security Administration (~1,440 ALJs as of late 2025)
Other major agencies	DOJ (immigration), HHS, SEC, EPA, DOL, USDA, FTC, FERC
Appointment	By agency heads; since Lucia v. SEC (2018), must be appointed by head of department
Removal protection	Only for good cause established by the MSPB after hearing
Case assignment	In rotation so far as practicable
Hearing authority	Administer oaths, issue subpoenas, rule on evidence, make initial decisions
Decision weight	Initial decision becomes agency decision unless appealed to the agency
Annual cases	Millions (Social Security disability alone: ~700,000+/year)

Legal Authority

5 U.S.C. § 3105 — Appointment (each agency shall appoint as many ALJs as necessary; ALJs assigned to cases in rotation; may not perform duties inconsistent with their role as hearing officers)
5 U.S.C. § 556 — Hearings (ALJs preside at evidentiary hearings; administer oaths, issue subpoenas, rule on evidence, regulate the hearing, make initial or recommended decisions; the agency, agency members, or an ALJ may preside)
5 U.S.C. § 557 — Initial decisions (the ALJ's initial decision becomes the decision of the agency unless appealed to or reviewed by the agency; agency on review has all powers it would have in making the initial decision)
5 U.S.C. § 7521 — Removal protection (an ALJ may be removed, suspended, or disciplined only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing)

How It Works

ALJs are not Article III judges — they don't have lifetime tenure or constitutional judicial independence. But they do have more independence than ordinary agency employees, by design. The APA's protections exist to ensure that the person deciding your case isn't pressured by the agency that's prosecuting it.

Case assignment in rotation means agencies can't channel cases to ALJs known for deciding a certain way. Removal only for good cause means an ALJ can't be fired for making unpopular decisions. These protections create a layer of separation between the agency's enforcement arm and its adjudication arm.

The hearing process follows formal adjudication procedures under the APA. The ALJ presides over an evidentiary hearing — with testimony, cross-examination, documentary evidence, and legal argument. The ALJ issues an initial decision (or in some cases a recommended decision) with findings of fact and conclusions of law. If no party appeals the initial decision to the agency, it becomes the final agency decision. If appealed, the agency reviews with full authority to modify or reverse.

Social Security disability accounts for the vast majority of ALJ work. When SSA denies your disability claim, you can request a hearing before an ALJ — an in-person or video hearing where you, your representative, and sometimes medical or vocational experts present evidence. The ALJ decides whether you meet the legal definition of disability. Approximately 700,000+ disability hearings are held annually, with wait times that have ranged from months to over a year depending on the backlog.

Beyond Social Security, ALJs preside at hearings in regulatory enforcement (SEC securities fraud, EPA environmental violations, FTC consumer protection), benefits determinations (DOL workers' compensation, USDA food stamp disqualifications), and immigration (though immigration judges are technically DOJ employees, not APA ALJs, they perform a similar function). The common thread: when an agency proposes to take action against you or deny your benefits, the ALJ ensures you get a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

The Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. SEC (2018) held that ALJs are "Officers of the United States" who must be appointed by the head of the department — not through staff-level hiring. This led to mass reappointment of ALJs across the federal government and ongoing constitutional debates about whether ALJs' removal protections violate Article II.

How It Affects You

If you've applied for Social Security disability benefits and been denied: The ALJ hearing is your most important opportunity in the entire claims process — and statistically, your best shot at winning. SSA denies roughly 65-70% of initial applications, and about 82% of reconsiderations. But ALJ hearings approve approximately 45-55% of cases heard (the rate has varied significantly by region and over time). An ALJ hearing is not a bureaucratic form-submission; it's an in-person or video proceeding where you testify under oath about how your conditions affect your ability to work, your medical records are entered into evidence, and the ALJ may call vocational and medical experts to testify — whom you can cross-examine. You have the right to be represented at no upfront cost — disability lawyers work on contingency, typically 25% of back pay up to a statutory maximum (~$9,200 as of 2026). Waits for hearings have stretched from 8 months to over 2 years depending on the hearing office, so file your request for a hearing immediately after a reconsideration denial. The ALJ's written decision includes findings of fact and conclusions of law — if the ALJ denies your claim, you can appeal to the SSA Appeals Council and then to federal district court.

If a federal regulatory agency — SEC, EPA, FTC, CFPB, or another — has brought an enforcement action against you: The ALJ hearing is where you present your defense, cross-examine government witnesses, introduce your own evidence, and challenge agency findings before a relatively independent decision-maker. ALJs can (and do) rule for respondents — they are not simply rubber stamps for agency enforcement staff. The significance of the ALJ forum versus federal district court shifted dramatically after the Supreme Court's Jarkesy decision (2024), which held that the Seventh Amendment requires jury trial rights in SEC civil penalty enforcement actions, limiting agencies' ability to route certain cases to ALJs instead of Article III courts. This means agency enforcement strategy is in flux: some types of cases that agencies previously handled in-house must now go to federal court. Consult with counsel about which forum your specific enforcement action will use, as the Jarkesy impact is still being litigated across agencies.

If you're an attorney who practices before federal agencies: ALJ proceedings follow the APA's formal adjudication procedures (5 U.S.C. §§ 556-557) rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the experience is recognizably adversarial — testimony, cross-examination, exhibits, opening and closing statements. Each agency and each major ALJ forum has its own procedural rules layered on top of the APA. The ASLBP (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), OALJ (DOL), FCSC, FERC, and the major SSA adjudication system all have distinct practices. After Lucia v. SEC (2018), which required ALJs to be appointed by agency heads as "Officers of the United States" rather than through staff hiring, all ALJs across the federal government were formally reappointed — changing none of their decisions but resolving a significant constitutional challenge. The pending constitutional questions about ALJ removal protection (whether requiring MSPB good-cause review violates Article II presidential control) remain live and could affect every agency that uses ALJs.

If you're a federal employee facing a disciplinary action that goes to hearing: You may appear before an ALJ, administrative judge, or hearing examiner depending on the agency and the type of action. ALJ protections (rotation assignment, removal only for good cause by MSPB) are specific to APA § 3105 ALJs — other administrative hearing officers at some agencies have less independence. For Merit Systems Protection Board appeals (most serious federal disciplinary actions), the adjudicator is an MSPB administrative judge, not a traditional ALJ. Understanding which type of adjudicator you're appearing before matters because it affects the procedural rules, appeal pathways, and independence protections. In SSA and some other high-volume adjudication contexts, your rights also include appointing a representative — including a union representative for covered federal employees.

State Variations

Federal ALJs operate under the APA. State administrative adjudication varies:

Most states have administrative hearing systems with hearing officers or ALJs
Some states have centralized hearing offices; others embed hearing officers within agencies
State ALJ independence protections vary — some mirror the APA; others provide less insulation
State Social Security initial determinations are made by state Disability Determination Services, but federal ALJ hearings follow federal law regardless of state

Implementing Regulations

5 CFR Part 1201 — MSPB practices and procedures (§§ 1201.102, 1201.121, 1201.123 — prohibition on ex parte communications, scope of ALJ jurisdiction, complaint contents)
5 CFR Part 930 — Programs for Specific Positions and Examinations, Subpart B: Administrative Law Judges (§§ 930.201–930.211): the operational rules governing how ALJs are examined, appointed, paid, and protected at OPM:
- § 930.201 — Coverage: applies to all positions requiring appointment under 5 U.S.C. § 3105 for proceedings conducted under 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 557; ALJ positions in the competitive and excepted service are covered
- § 930.203 — Examination costs: each agency employing ALJs must reimburse OPM for the cost of developing and administering the ALJ examination — assessed as a pro-rata share per ALJ the agency hired from the register; OPM administers a single centralized examination used by all federal agencies, which applicants must pass to be placed on the ALJ register
- § 930.204 — Appointments and conditions of employment: appointment requires OPM prior approval unless the agency selects from the OPM-provided list of eligibles; once appointed, an ALJ receives a career appointment in the competitive service — not a time-limited or probationary appointment; an agency cannot reassign an ALJ to other duties without OPM approval; ALJs may not be required to perform duties inconsistent with their role as hearing officers (reinforcing the APA's separation between adjudication and enforcement functions)
- § 930.205 — ALJ pay system: ALJs are paid under a special pay system separate from the GS scale; there are three pay levels — AL-3 (the entry level, with six pay rates A through F), AL-2, and AL-1 (the highest); the minimum rate for AL-3/A may not be less than 65% of the basic pay rate for Level IV of the Executive Schedule; pay rate A is mandatory for new ALJs absent a higher determination by OPM; advancement through rates A–F within AL-3 is time-based
- § 930.206 — Pay increases: within the AL-3 range, pay may be increased subject to OPM rules; no ALJ's pay may exceed the basic rate for AL-1 (the pay cap); special pay adjustments for locality, retention, or supervisory differentials that apply to GS employees do not apply to ALJs
- § 930.208 — Hearing of removal actions: before an agency may take adverse action against an ALJ, it must petition the MSPB — not the agency's own HR system — to conduct a hearing; the MSPB serves as the fact-finder for removal, suspension, and demotion actions (implementing 5 U.S.C. § 7521); this procedural requirement is the concrete expression of ALJ independence — the employing agency cannot unilaterally discipline an ALJ it disagrees with
The Part 930 pay and appointment structure reflects a deliberate policy choice: ALJs must be compensated well enough that they aren't financially dependent on the goodwill of the agency they serve, and they must be selected through a centralized merit-based examination rather than agency patronage. In practice, ALJs often earn salaries comparable to senior federal managers — in 2025, AL-3/A starts above $100,000 annually, with AL-1 reaching approximately $190,000+. The 2025 litigation over Schedule Policy/Career reclassification raised the question of whether OPM could alter Part 930's protections by executive order — OPM's position is that the APA's § 3105 statutory framework limits what OPM can change without Congressional action.
5 CFR Part 185 — Administrative enforcement procedures (§ 185.101 — purpose of Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act procedures before ALJs)

Pending Legislation

HR 697 (Rep. Hagerty, R-TN) — Would create a Schedule Policy/Career classification to reclassify ALJ hiring rules, altering how agencies recruit and appoint administrative law judges. Status: Introduced.
HR 607 (Rep. Self, R-TX) — Would require ATF to follow a fast multi-tier appeal process with ALJ hearings for product classifications, expanding ALJ involvement in firearms regulatory decisions. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

Trump administration targets ALJ independence (2025): In January 2025, President Trump issued executive orders directing agencies to consider ALJs subject to presidential supervisory authority, challenging the statutory good-cause removal protection (5 U.S.C. § 7521). The administration attempted to fire several ALJs — most prominently two NLRB administrative law judges — arguing the MSPB removal-protection scheme unconstitutionally insulates adjudicators from presidential control. Federal district courts issued temporary restraining orders blocking the firings, finding that the ALJs were likely to succeed on their statutory protection claims. The constitutional question — whether Congress may shield ALJs from at-will removal — remains unresolved and may reach the Supreme Court.
Schedule F and ALJ reclassification: Trump's "Schedule Policy/Career" executive order (the successor to Biden-revoked Schedule F) raised questions about whether ALJs could be reclassified into the new category, stripping their competitive service protections. OPM guidance clarified that APA § 3105 ALJs are governed by a separate statutory scheme and are not simply reclassifiable by executive order — but litigation over the boundary of presidential authority continues.
Jarkesy impact reshaping agency enforcement: The Supreme Court's SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) ruling — that the Seventh Amendment requires jury trials for certain SEC civil penalty cases — has forced agencies to rethink how they bring enforcement actions. Cases that previously went to in-house ALJ proceedings must now go to Article III courts in some circumstances, increasing litigation costs for agencies and respondents alike. The FTC, CFTC, and EPA are all assessing how Jarkesy affects their own enforcement programs.
SSA disability backlog: Social Security disability hearing backlogs — which had been reduced in the early 2020s through video hearings and targeted hiring — worsened in 2025 as DOGE-related workforce reductions and hiring freezes affected SSA's administrative capacity. Wait times for ALJ disability hearings began increasing, with some hearing offices reporting waits approaching 18+ months.