Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board

Summary

The Supreme Court of California held that due process does not require disqualification of an agency attorney prosecuting a water-license revocation proceeding merely because the attorney concurrently advised the agency in an unrelated matter. The court concluded that case-by-case separation of prosecutorial and advisory functions, together with restrictions on ex parte communications, was sufficient absent evidence of actual bias or circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment compelling disqualification.

Holdings

1. An agency attorney's concurrent service as prosecutor in one administrative proceeding and adviser to the agency adjudicator in an entirely unrelated proceeding does not, by itself, violate the license holder's constitutional right to due process.
2. California's Administrative Procedure Act requires separation of prosecutorial and advisory functions on a case-by-case basis; it does not prohibit an employee who prosecutes one case from advising the agency in an unrelated case.
3. Quintero v. City of Santa Ana is distinguishable because it involved failures to maintain separation within other matters and evidence that the attorney had become the agency board's sole or primary legal adviser. Any language in Quintero inconsistent with this decision is disapproved.

Questions Presented

1. Whether due process is violated when an agency attorney prosecuting a license-revocation proceeding concurrently advises the agency adjudicator in an unrelated proceeding.
2. Whether constitutional due process requires an administrative agency's separation of prosecutorial and advisory functions across all pending cases, rather than only within the same or factually related case.
3. Whether the circumstances established an unacceptable probability of actual bias sufficient to overcome the presumption that the administrative adjudicators were impartial.

Disposition

reversed