Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T12:35:00.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Anti–New Dealer Legacy: The Administrative Procedure Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

James E. Brazier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) has been sorely neglected in the history of the relationship of the political actors to the administrative state. There is no full account of the history of the APA, yet there is an increasing need for such a history. There is a growing literature paying renewed attention to the importance of administrative procedures in the politics of the administrative state (McCubbins and Schwartz 1984; McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast 1987, 1989; Moe 1989; Hill and Brazier 1991; Farber 1992; Mashaw 1990; and Bawn 1995). With all this attention being given to the importance of administrative procedure, it is about time to examine the history of the act that established the minimum standards of administrative procedure. The act regulates the procedures for adjudication, access to, disclosure of, and publication of agency information, licensing, rule-making, investigations, tenure of administrative law judges, and judicial review of agency action. Standard accounts of the APA's legislative history such as Galloway's (1946) have conveyed the impression that the APA was a noncontroversial, consensual piece of legislation that provided much-needed reform of federal administrative procedures. The actual history of this act involved a prolonged battle among the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the presidency, the legislature, and interest groups for political advantage in the administrative state that had been created by the New Deal and World War II.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 206 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1996

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

ABA. 1941a. “Analysis of Bills Accompanying Report of the Attorney General's Committee.” American Bar Association Journal 27:140–43.Google Scholar
ABA. 1939a. “Report of Administrative Law Committee and Draft of Proposed Bill.” American Bar Association Journal 25:113–18.Google Scholar
Acheson, Dean. 1941a. “Letter to E. B. Stason of January 28, 1941.” Acheson Papers: File on Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
Acheson, Dean. 1941b. “Telegram to E. B. Stason of January 17, 1941.” Acheson Papers: File on Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
Arnold, Peri E. 1986. Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganisation Planning, 1905–1980. Princeton.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen. 1995. “Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures.” American Political Science Review 89:62–73.Google Scholar
Blachly, Frederick F., and Oatman, Miriam E.. 1946. “Sabotage of the Administrative Process.” Public Administration Review 6:213–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Maurice. 1946. “Letter to F. J. Bailey of May 31, 1946,” in “Enrolled Bill File for Administrative Procedure Act, S.7.” Papers of Harry S. Truman; Bureau of the Budget File. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
Congressional Directory. 1927–46.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1939. 76th Cong., 1st sess. Vol. 84, Pans 5, 7 and 9.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1940. 76th Cong., 3rd sess. Vol. 86, Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 12.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1946. 79th Cong., 2nd sess. Vol. 92, Parts 2 and 5.Google Scholar
Dierenfield, Bruce J. 1987. Keeper of the Rules. Charlottesville, Va.Google Scholar
Donovan, Robert J. 1977. Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945–1948. New York.Google Scholar
Editors of the New York Times. 1941. “Regulating the Regulators,” New York Times, 27 January 1941.Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel A. 1992. “Politics and Procedure in Environmental Law.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 8 (1):59–81.Google Scholar
Fine, Sidney. 1984. Frank Murphy: The Washington Years. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Franklin, Jay. 1941. “Administrative Law Dispute: Minority Report Produced After Supposed Agreement in Acheson Group,” Newark Evening News, 16 January 1941, sec. 1.Google Scholar
Galloway, George B. 1946. Congress at the Crossroads. New York.Google Scholar
Gellhorn, Walter et al. 1987. Administrative Law: Cases and Comments. 8th ed.Mineola, N.Y.Google Scholar
Gellhorn, Walter. 1986. “The Administrative Procedure Act: The Beginnings.” Virginia Law Review 72:219–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellhorn, Walter. Davis, Kenneth C., and Verkuil, Paul R., Moderator, with introduction by Susman, Thomas M.. 1986. “Present at the Creation: Regulatory Reform Before 1946.” Administrative Law Review 38:507–33.Google Scholar
Hall, Alvin L. 1974. “Politics and Patronage: Viginia's Senators and the Roosevelt Purges of 1938.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 82:331–50.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeffrey S., and Brazier, James. 1991. “Constraining Administrative Decisions: A Critical Examination of the Structure and Process Hypothesis.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organisation 7 (2):373–40O.Google Scholar
Josephy, Alvin M. 1979. On the Hill: A History of the American Congress. New York.Google Scholar
Knott, Jack, and Miller, Gary. 1987. Reforming Bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1990. “Explaining Administrative Process: Normative, Positive, and Critical Stories of Legal Development.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (Special Issue):267–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1989. “Structure and Process; Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies.” Virginia Law Review 75:431–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:243–77.Google Scholar
McCullough, David G. 1992. Truman. New York.Google Scholar
McFarland, Carl. 1941a. “Letter to Edgar B. Tolman of February 1, 1941.” Acheson Papers: File on Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
McFarland, Carl. 1941b. “Letter to Dean Acheson of January 11, 1941.” Acheson Papers: File on Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
McFarland, Carl. 1940. “Letter to Dean Acheson of December 4, 1940.” Acheson Papers: Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. Independence, Mo.: Harry S. Truman Library.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1989. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure.” in Can the Government Govern? ed. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E.. Washington D.C., 267–329.Google Scholar
Patterson, James T. 1967. Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress. Lexington, Ky.Google Scholar
Savage, Sean. 1991. Roosevelt: The Party Leader. Lexington, Ky.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Alfred. 1975. Sam Raybum: A Biography. New York.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1946. House Report No. 1980. 79th Cong., 2d sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1945a. Hearings on Bills of Administrative Procedure: H.R. 184, H.R. 339, H.R. 1117, H.R. 1203, H.R. 1206, H.R: 2602. 79th Cong., 1st sess., House Committee on the Judiciary.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1945b. Senate Report No. 752. 79th Cong., 1st sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congresss. 1943–45. Hearings Before the Special Committee to Investigate Executive Agencies, House of Representatives. 78th and 79th Congresses.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1942. House Miscellaneous Reports, vol. 5 (V): Report No. 2688. 77th Cong., 2d sess.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1941a. Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies, Report of the Committee on Administrative Procedure, Appointed by the Attorney General, At the Request of the President, To Investigate the Need for Procedural Reform in Various Administrative Tribunals and to Suggest Improvements Therein. 77th Cong., 1st sess. Senate Document No. 8.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1941b. Hearings Before a Judiciary Subcommittee on S. 674, S. 675, and S. 918. 77th Cong., 1st sess., Senate.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1939a. Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 4 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives on H.R. 4236, H.R. 6298, and H.R. 6324: Serial No. 13, March 17 and April 5, 1939. 76th Cong., 1st sess., House.Google Scholar