The legal system in the United States presents challenging objectives that require an extensive search for information in order to produce the most reasonable outcome. One’s reliance on either strict rules or arbitrary decisions has to remain focused on the fairness of a process (Rosenbloom, 2022). This essay will review Professor David Shapiro’s thoughts on this matter and present two cases in which the effects of this approach become apparent.
Rulemaking and adjudication play a vital part in the U.S. legal system. Adjudication requires experience to be applied appropriately as it pursues complex goals. Shapiro reveals that some agencies tend to “evolve […] detailed and precise rules in the course of adjudication” (p. 926). Agencies may resort to adjudication often due to the necessity to incorporate an extensive body of presented information in their decisions. In turn, rulemaking creates a common ground that can serve as a unifying factor for numerous cases, although it has limitations that must be considered at all times, such as (Shapiro, 1965). Such an approach may produce results that may be perceived as unsatisfactory by the involved parties, although it helps avoid making conclusions based on individual merits. Regardless of choice, it is vital for agencies to remain objective and advance policies that promote the common good. Decision-making agencies possess the need to pursue formulations that suit each particular situation (Shapiro, 1965). Therefore, both methods have advantages and must be incorporated into administrative agencies’ toolkits at all times.
The cases of Heckler v. Campbell and Mathews v. Eldridge reveal how rulemaking and evidence-based adjudication affect the outcomes. The first case presents the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on a topic that is prone to be affected by subjective views. After establishing a set of standardized rules for determining one’s disability, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was met with confusion from people with disabilities who sought suitable positions (Heckler v. Campbell, 1983). The outcome relies on the newly formed regulations that govern the direction of this dispute and come to the conclusion that rulemaking can lead to fair rulings. However, it is also possible to seek experts’ opinions that may change the settlement. This incident teaches the value of unbiased views in the decision-making process, which focus on complex issues, the resolution of which is already outlined in the existing guidelines.
In turn, the second case highlights the worth of an evidence-based approach. The situation bears similarities with the first instance, although the proofs from medical sources are used in an evidentiary hearing that helps with the resolution of the issue (Mathews v. Eldridge, 1976). It becomes apparent that adjudication can be favorable for complex verdicts that are based on a significant volume of data and claims made by the involved sides. This legal process explains how circumstances may demand an in-depth analysis of substantiation behind a dispute.
In conclusion, it is essential for agencies to assess all the existing evidence of each case, yet the connection between the outcome and its relation to the existing legislatures must be upheld at all times. The formality of procedures plays a vital part in the administrative agencies’ performance. While rulemaking presents clear guidelines for one’s decision, adjudication enables people to review the full complexity of the case and bring forth a weighted order. Adjudication remains proceduralized, which implies the existence of requirements sufficient for a feasible decision to be made. In turn, rulemaking creates an overarching, generally applicable way of problem resolution.
References
Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983). Web.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Web.
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2022). Administrative law for public managers (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Shapiro, D. L. (1965). The choice of rulemaking or adjudication in the development of administrative policy. Harvard Law Review, 78(5), 921. Web.