Barber v. D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Superior Court rulings dismissing challenges to the removal and non-reappointment of administrative law judges by the D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges. The court held that the statutory grant of "final authority" to the Commission, together with the statutory treatment of ALJs as excepted-service employees, constituted clear and convincing evidence that the Council intended to preclude judicial review of the Commission’s tenure decisions.

Holdings

1. COST's decisions concerning the appointment, removal, discipline, and reappointment of ALJs under D.C. Code § 2-1831.06(b) are not subject to judicial review.
2. Allegations that COST failed to follow its own procedures do not create a route to judicial review when the statutory scheme otherwise clearly precludes review.
3. The participation of COST voting members after expiration of their statutory terms did not entitle Barber or Hines to judicial review or vacatur because the de facto officer doctrine validated their acts.
4. Goode had no viable claim that COST was unlawfully constituted when it decided not to reappoint him because the allegedly holdover members had been validly reappointed by the time COST rendered its decision, and COST had deferred action at Goode's request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D.C. Code § 2-1831.06(b), which gives COST final authority over the appointment, reappointment, discipline, and removal of ALJs, precludes judicial review of COST tenure decisions.
2. Whether Martin v. District of Columbia Courts permits judicial review of COST decisions when the appellants allege that COST failed to follow its own procedures.
3. Whether the participation of COST voting members after expiration of their statutory terms permits judicial review or requires vacatur of COST's decisions.
4. Whether Goode had a viable claim that COST was unlawfully constituted when it decided not to reappoint him.

Disposition

affirmed