Withrow v. Larkin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessAdministrative Adjudicationprocedural due processadministrative agenciesbiasprejudgmentinvestigative and adjudicative functions

Facts

Wisconsin's medical Examining Board was authorized to investigate physicians, reprimand them, temporarily suspend licenses, and institute criminal or revocation actions upon finding probable cause. The Board notified appellee, a Wisconsin-licensed physician, that it would conduct an investigative hearing into possible professional misconduct; appellee and counsel could attend, but could not cross-examine witnesses. After investigative sessions, the Board noticed a contested hearing to determine whether appellee had committed specified statutory violations warranting temporary suspension. When that hearing was enjoined, the Board instead issued findings and conclusions stating there was probable cause to believe appellee had violated the statutes and directed that a verified complaint be filed with the district attorney to initiate revocation and criminal proceedings.

Issue

Does procedural due process forbid a state medical examining board from adjudicating whether to temporarily suspend a physician's license when the same board previously investigated the physician and determined there was probable cause to initiate charges? More broadly, does the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions in the same agency members, without additional evidence of bias, create an unconstitutional risk of unfairness?

Rule

A fair trial in a fair tribunal is required by due process, and due process is violated when the probability of actual bias is constitutionally intolerable. But the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions in the same administrative body does not, without more, constitute a due process violation; there is a presumption that administrators act with honesty and integrity, and mere exposure to evidence in nonadversary investigative proceedings or a prior probable-cause determination is insufficient by itself to establish unconstitutional bias or prejudgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Colorado Veterinary Licensing Panel in Denver opened a nonpublic inquiry into Dr. Nina Patel after complaints about recordkeeping and drug-dispensing practices. After panel members heard witnesses in the inquiry, the same panel scheduled a formal adversary hearing to decide whether to suspend her license for 60 days.

Dr. Patel seeks an injunction, arguing that due process is violated solely because the same panel both investigated and will adjudicate. What is the best answer?

Explanation. Due process requires a fair tribunal, but the majority held there is a presumption of honesty and integrity in administrative adjudicators. Mere combination of investigative and adjudicative functions, without more, is not enough to show a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias or prejudgment.