Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:20:48.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conclusiveness of Administrative Determinations in the Federal Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Thomas Reed Powell
Affiliation:
Columbia University

Extract

The Federal Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and vests in the Federal Supreme Court the ultimate power to determine what is due process. The legality of any interference with person or property may always be questioned in judicial proceedings, and therefore depends, in the last analysis, upon its conformity to a rule of law laid down by the courts.

The most usual method of disturbing the individual in the enjoyment of his personal and property rights is by judicial proceedings, and no person without authority of some branch of the government can constitutionally imprison him or permanently appropriate his property by any other means. Conceivably, the doctrine might have obtained that the government and its agents acting in official capacities must also have recourse to the courts in any undertaking affecting private rights. But “due process” has been interpreted as meaning process in conformity with certain fundamental principles, rather than any specific and required mode of procedure. The courts have held that, in certain instances, the government may interfere with private rights through the action of its administrative agents, and that such agents may be vested with the power of final and conclusive determination of the facts on which their action is based.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1907

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 At the hearing in the court below, the government declined to offer evidence as to the nativity of petitioner, insisting upon the power of the administration to determine the fact finally; which robs the judicial determination of citizenship of some of its force so far as the particular case is concerned.

2 Since temporary confinement is a less serious interference with private right than permanent exclusion, the case shows clearly that the determining factor in sustaining the exercise of these administration functions is not the extent of the restraint of personal liberty, but the relation of the means employed to the necessities of government.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.