Horne v. Polk

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that due process prohibits the same agency official from serving as the accuser, advocate, and final decisionmaker in an administrative campaign-finance enforcement proceeding. Because Sheila Polk issued the initial violation order, participated in prosecuting the matter before an administrative law judge, and later issued the final agency decision, the court found an intolerable risk of bias. The court vacated the superior court and court of appeals decisions and remanded for a final decision by a neutral decisionmaker.

Holdings

1. The Fourteenth Amendment's due-process guarantee does not permit the same person to serve as an accuser, advocate, and final decisionmaker in an agency adjudication. Although an agency may generally combine investigative and adjudicative functions, the same official may not make the initial legal determination, materially participate in prosecution or advocacy, and then make the final agency decision.
2. An agency head may supervise personnel involved in investigation and prosecution, but if the agency head will make the final decision, the agency head must be isolated from advocacy functions and strategic prosecutorial decisionmaking and must supervise prosecutorial personnel in an arms-length fashion.
3. Appellants were entitled to a final administrative determination by a neutral decisionmaker; the ALJ decision did not automatically become final because Polk acted within the statutory thirty-day period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether due process permits the same agency official to issue the initial determination of a campaign-finance violation, participate materially in prosecuting the matter before an administrative law judge, and then issue the final agency decision.
2. What remedy is appropriate for a due-process violation caused by the lack of a neutral administrative decisionmaker.

Disposition

vacated