Talk:Administrative law judge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Appealing

How do I prepare an appeal to a state agency's adminiatrative decision?Rjharve 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong page for that kind of question. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Coolcaesar 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Executive Office for Immigration review does not have ALJs, but rather IJs. 68.33.203.109

What's it like to be an ALJ? I've heard it's a great job. Anyone out there want to add their personal perspective? ConnorsMom (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative inventories

There are at least three negative inventories in the article. They say "As such, they do not exercise full judicial power, essentially, the power over life, liberty,and property." "Agency ALJs do not have the power to offer such advisory opinions as it would be in violation.." "ALJs are limited as they have no power to sanction unless a ..."

The reason to avoid negative inventories, is that it is hard to know when to stop. Do they hear probate? Can they arrest people? Can they... etc. Let's try to find a way of stating this in a positive frame. The lack of power will then be obvious. It is not only poor writing, it can be hard to maintain and is really out of place in an encyclopedia. It is not a "put-down" article for ALJs.

I don't say that police are not FBI agents, that military intelligence is not the National Security Agency or CIA, etc. Just stating their capabilities clearly should be sufficient. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Legal Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): USDW05 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Simmsmls (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess because it is conflating ALJ with non-ALJ adjudicators

While researching an unrelated issue, I stumbled across a clarification of the term ALJ which led me to belatedly realize that this article is conflating two separate and distinct concepts. (Having contributed to this article myself, I am partially responsible for that mistake.)

This book explains: "The phrase 'administrative law judge' is a term of art; it is not (as many law students mistakenly assume) a generic phrase that can be used to describe any agency adjudicator. Instead, administrative law judges decide claims under the APA's provisions for agency adjudication."

The book cites this article which distinguishes between administrative law judges (ALJs) under the APA and administrative judges (AJs) operating under other statutory provisions.

That led me to a bunch of other materials that distinguish clearly between ALJ and non-ALJ adjudicators, such as this administrative recommendation, this law review article, this law review article, and this CRS report to Congress.

I propose to narrow the scope of this article to ALJs in the strict sense under the APA, make it clear that all other adjudicators are non-ALJ adjudicators, and then move a lot of the content about them to Adjudicator. Any objections? Coolcaesar (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found two more sources which note the distinction between ALJs and adjudicators who are not ALJs; this one and this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]