There is nothing inherent in a system of administrative justice that renders it either superior or inferior to the system of legal justice administered by courts. It is important, however, to recognize the intrinsic differences between administrative and legal justice. The cornerstone of legal justice is due process. Outcomes are considered just to the extent that they were attained by way of fair procedures. In a very real sense, having one’s day in court is the essence of legal justice. Administrative justice, by contrast, is arrived at by way of a more open-ended and fluid process. Though the fairness of administrative process is often an important consideration, the principal justification for administrative action is its rationality. A responsible and honest system of administrative justice is as capable of serving the interests of a free people as a federal “judiciary of high competence and character.” By the same token, an unaccountable system of administrative justice is as dangerous as an unprincipled judiciary. Safeguards are needed to ensure the faithful prosecution of the people’s business by agencies and courts alike. The author believes that institutional safeguards of a nation’s system of administrative justice have been seriously weakened by excessive delegation and that judicial review by the court is played out like a cynical shell game, in which the government always wins, and the institutional checks and balances of administrative power are proven to be ineffectual, thereby stressing upon the need of ensuring the doctrine of excessive delegation to ensure due process.

Keywords: Administrative Law, Courts, Delegation, Due process, Judiciary, Justice.

 Download Full Paper