New report exposes lack of transparency in administrative adjudications, raises questions of constitutional accountability

Washington, D.C.; October 22, 2025: When federal agencies accuse someone of breaking regulations, they often hold in-house trials with their own judges—but a new report reveals many agencies are secretly borrowing these judges from other agencies, raising questions about fairness and accountability. In the Pacific Legal Foundation report, How Interagency Borrowing of Administrative Law Judges Circumvents the Rule of Law, Stone Washington, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, provides the first systematic analysis of ALJ borrowing.

“This obscure process may violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution for agencies that informally borrow all their ALJs without possessing a tribunal,” Washington writes.

Many agencies have in-house tribunals. Rather than using Administrative Law Judges within their respective agencies, agencies pull ALJs from other agencies or appoint attorneys as ALJs without defendant approval. This means that attorneys are serving as both prosecutor and judge within the agencies, wreaking havoc on constitutional accountability.

Since ALJs are sent on loan or are attorneys acting as ALJs, it is difficult to determine who is accountable and who has constitutional authority. Washington’s analysis reveals that 28% of the more than 2,000 ALJs are transferred between other agencies, citing the Social Security Administration as the biggest culprit.

The lack of transparency within the “hidden judiciary” threatens the separation of powers: a hallmark to our constitutional structure. Washington concludes that these risky activities jeopardize the constitutional authority within Articles I, II, and III of our Constitution—and suggests that further study should be conducted as it pertains to accountability, agency spending, and quasi-judicial power.