U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 5— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

5 U.S.C. § 557

Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, when a hearing is required to be conducted in accordance with section 556 of this title.(b) When the agency did not preside at the reception of the evidence, the presiding employee or, in cases not subject to section 554(d) of this title, an employee qualified to preside at hearings pursuant to section 556 of this title, shall initially decide the case unless the agency requires, either in specific cases or by general rule, the entire record to be certified to it for decision. When the presiding employee makes an initial decision, that decision then becomes the decision of the agency without further proceedings unless there is an appeal to, or review on motion of, the agency within time provided by rule. On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule. When the agency makes the decision without having presided at the reception of the evidence, the presiding employee or an employee qualified to preside at hearings pursuant to section 556 of this title shall first recommend a decision, except that in rule making or determining applications for initial licenses—(1) instead thereof the agency may issue a tentative decision or one of its responsible employees may recommend a decision; or(2) this procedure may be omitted in a case in which the agency finds on the record that due and timely execution of its functions imperatively and unavoidably so requires.(c) Before a recommended, initial, or tentative decision, or a decision on agency review of the decision of subordinate employees, the parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to submit for the consideration of the employees participating in the decisions—(1) proposed findings and conclusions; or(2) exceptions to the decisions or recommended decisions of subordinate employees or to tentative agency decisions; and(3) supporting reasons for the exceptions or proposed findings or conclusions.The record shall show the ruling on each finding, conclusion, or exception presented. All decisions, including initial, recommended, and tentative decisions, are a part of the record and shall include a statement of—(A) findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record; and(B) the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief, or denial thereof.(d)(1) In any agency proceeding which is subject to subsection (a) of this section, except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law—(A) no interested person outside the agency shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding;(B) no member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding, shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any interested person outside the agency an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding;(C) a member of the body comprising the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of such proceeding who receives, or who makes or knowingly causes to be made, a communication prohibited by this subsection shall place on the public record of the proceeding:(i) all such written communications;(ii) memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and(iii) all written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph;(D) upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this subsection, the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee presiding at the hearing may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes, require the party to show cause why his claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation; and(E) the prohibitions of this subsection shall apply beginning at such time as the agency may designate, but in no case shall they begin to apply later than the time at which a proceeding is noticed for hearing unless the person responsible for the communication has knowledge that it will be noticed, in which case the prohibitions shall apply beginning at the time of his acquisition of such knowledge.(2) This subsection does not constitute authority to withhold information from Congress.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 387; Pub. L. 94–409, § 4(a), Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1246.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 1007.

June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 8, 60 Stat. 242.

In subsection (b), the word “employee” is substituted for “officer” and “officers” in view of the definition of “employee” in section 2105. The word “either” is added after the word “requires” in the first sentence to eliminate the need for parentheses. The words “the presiding employee or an employee qualified to preside at hearings under section 556 of this title” are substituted for “such officers” in the last sentence. The word “initial” is omitted before “decision”, the final word in the first sentence and the sixth word of the fourth sentence, to avoid confusion between the “initial decision” of the presiding employee and the “initial decision” of the agency.

In subsection (c), the word “employees” is substituted for “officers” in view of the definition of “employee” in section 2105.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesCodification

Section 557 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2207 of Title 7, Agriculture.

Section 557a of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2208 of Title 7.

Amendments

1976—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–409 added subsec. (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–409 effective 180 days after Sept. 13, 1976, see section 6 of Pub. L. 94–409, set out as an Effective Date note under section 552b of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 577 cases (79 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Gunderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gunderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 18× “The ALJ's cursory statement that the evidence from both parties was entitled to equal weight does not constitute a sufficient reason or basis for his decision, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 557 (c)(3)(A). However, we further conclude that the ALJ…”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 2× “Is it conceivable that decisions *245 specifically committed to these high-level officers are meant to be accorded no deference, while decisions by an administrative law judge left in place without further discretionary agency review, see 5 U. S. C. § 557 (b), are authoritative?…”
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). · cites it 2× “Our view of the due process demands of a motion to suppress evidence makes those agency cases relevant, although to be sure we do not suggest that the interests inherent in administrative adjudications are always equivalent to those implicated in a constitutional challenge to…”
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021). · cites it 2× “, 5 U. S. C. §557 (b). According to the Government and Smith & Nephew, heads of de- partment appoint a handful of contemporary officers who purportedly exercise final decisionmaking authority.”
Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). “5 U. S. C. §557 (c). It can “make any findings or conclusions that in its judgment are proper and on the basis of the record.”
White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “" 5 U.S.C. § 557 (b)(2). The USDA Rules of Practice incorporate the statutory standard; they state in relevant part: "Omission of recommended decision.”
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808 (2015). · cites it 2× “” 5 U. S. C. §557 (c)(A) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added).”
Lane-Rauth v. Barnhart, 437 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 3× “While 5 U.S.C. § 557 (c)(3)(A) requires that the ALJ provide “conclusions and explanations” to support his determination, the court disagrees with the plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ’s decision did not properly explain the severity of the plaintiffs impairments.”
Vineland Fireworks Co. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 544 F.3d 509 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “" 5 U.S.C. § 557 (b). Thus, Congress permits the agency to limit its review using its regulation-promulgating powers, but if it chooses not to do so, it exercises de novo review over the ALJ's decision.”
Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “2005) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 557 (b)). By contrast, the Tax Court in Freytag was “required to defer” to the special trial judge’s “factual and credibility findings unless they were clearly erroneous,” Landry, 204 F.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Lastly, Synopsys argues that the “tempout” signals of Figures 16 and 18 of Gregory disclose instrumentation signals indicative of execution status, and that the Board improperly did not address this argument in its decision. In general, an agency issuing an order from a formal…”
Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 557 (c) (emphasis added); Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.”
Show all 577 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 557(C) — 1 case
Alexander A. Medlin v. Douglas A. Collins (Vet. App. 2026).
— 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) — 1 case
Sokoloff v. Saxbe, 501 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1974).
— 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) — 4 cases
Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Ark. 1973).
Buckner Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Tex. 1973).
Mower v. Britton, 504 F.2d 396 (10th Cir. 1974).
Am. Exp.-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 389 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
— 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
Wood Cnty. Bank v. Camp, 348 F. Supp. 1321 (D.D.C. 1972).
— 5 U.S.C. § 557(d) — 1 case
Barnhart v. United States Treasury Dep't, 588 F. Supp. 1432 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.