Every American knows that when you are sued or accused of a crime, you have a right to a fair trial. That includes an independent judge, fixed rules of evidence, and often a jury.
But if you find yourself in the crosshairs of one of America’s regulatory agencies, you’re likely to end up in a different sort of “trial” altogether.
Regulatory agencies have their own in-house tribunals that look like courts, but in fact violate the most fundamental aspects of due process and the rule of law.
If a regulatory agency believes you have violated a statute or a regulation, it can haul you before its own biased tribunal, in which you could face crushing fines and the prospect of losing your home, business, or livelihood.
In short, if you find yourself in one of these government tribunals, you’re very likely to lose.
Pacific Legal Foundation knows securing Americans’ rights means putting an end to unjust regulatory tribunals. Through litigation and legislative reform, PLF is fighting to return the adjudicative process to where it belongs: real, constitutional courts.
Jamie and Clyde Leach formed Leachco in 1988, a few months after their then-seven-month-old Alex nearly fell out of a restaurant highchair. Jamie designed a safety harness; then, over the years, she and her family invented a wide range of products for infants. One is the popular Podster infant lounger: a baby pillow. It comes with explicit instructions that it should only be used with babies who are awake and under adult supervision. But tragically, two babies died after the pillow was misused: one in a daycare crib and one in a co-sleeping arrangement. Now the Consumer Product Safety Commission is prosecuting the Leaches in an in-house tribunal where the deck is stacked against them. With PLF, the family filed a federal lawsuit, arguing the CPSC’s proceeding violates their right to a fair trial.
Executive branch agencies have the power to bring virtually anyone before their tribunals. Agencies that conduct in-house adjudication include, but are not limited to:
Agency tribunals don’t follow the same rules normal courts do. They don’t have neutral judges; they have Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who work for the agency. There’s no jury. There aren’t fixed rules of evidence. If you want to appeal the decision, your appeal goes straight to the leadership of the agency prosecuting you. The process will likely take years. After the agency’s in-house judge and the agency have both ruled against you—and after you’ve spent time and money clawing your way through the administrative process—you’ll finally be allowed to appeal to a real court. But even then, you still won’t have a fair shot at justice, because real courts are required to defer to agencies.
If an agency thinks you’ve broken the law, it should make its case in a real court with an independent judge and a jury of your peers.
PLF represents individuals and businesses that find themselves targets of unfair agency prosecutions. Our clients have shown that no one has to play the agencies’ game—you can fight to change the entire system. Through our clients’ bravery, and by working alongside private counsel across the country, PLF is challenging the whole adjudicative process as unconstitutional.
(Photo to left: PLF attorneys and staff prepare for a hearing with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.)
Everyone has the right to due process—and legislators ensure their constituents have access to real courts, not sham administrative hearings.
Effective reform should restore fairness and due process when citizens are accused by regulatory agencies.
See our model policy: Restoring the Right to Trial Act
Are you facing an in-house tribunal with a regulatory agency? Submit your case to PLF and see if we can help you.
Two federal district courts determined in a single week that the Office of Management and Budget’s federal funding freeze had to be put on hold while the claims were resolved. The courts showed no h…
The time has come for Congress to implement the bare minimum that the Constitution requires, as recognized by Jarkesy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jarkesy restores the Seventh Amendment to its proper place among the Constitution’s most vital protections of individual liberty against arbitrary government action…
Administrative agencies have become lawmakers in their own right, often adopting rules governing much of American life outside the influence of Congress and often even the president.
Today, the leading remedies for administrative enforcement actions are two types of pocketbook punishments—either civil money penalties or relief borrowed from the law of restitution. In 2022, the s…
A year has passed since the US Supreme Court opened the door to Americans trying to escape the federal government’s administrative tribunals. Yet real relief from agency proceedings remains elusive….
Agencies are executive bodies that create rules to enforce federal law. Those rules, importantly, shouldn’t be retroactive.
The administrative state concentrates lawmaking, enforcement, and adjudication in agencies—eroding separation of powers and threatening liberty.
Federal judge heard arguments on whether HISA’s private anti-doping enforcement against trainer Philip Serpe violates the Constitution.
Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled agencies can no longer supply their own facts in court—judges must now independently determine facts, ending decades of deference that favored government agencies.
WA ranchers fight for jury trial rights after state hit them with penalties over stockwater ponds, challenging agency-only enforcement.
Two years after Jarkesy, PLF’s research and cases show critics’ doomsday predictions were wrong — but the constitutional fight for jury trials is far from over.
A federal agency spent four years blaming an Oklahoma baby product company for caregiver misuse—then dropped the case without a finding on the merits.
This week, Matthias O’Meara and Choice Advisors, LLC filed an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking restoration of their right to be heard by an independent judge and jury. O’Mea…
Last week, Pacific Legal Foundation filed a reply brief with the Nevada Supreme Court on behalf of Jeffrey Hagen—an experienced architect based in Sacramento, California. After alleging that he prac…
In 2024, a historic mining company found itself before an agency tribunal. The company represented itself, filing petitions with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission to deny and vacate…
The right to a jury trial is one of the core tenets of our United States legal system. Its significance to the Founding Fathers was such that King George’s denial of jury trials was included as a gr…
