{"id":56,"date":"2026-07-22T02:52:05","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T02:52:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/?p=56"},"modified":"2026-07-22T02:52:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T02:52:05","slug":"5-u-s-c-%c2%a7-554-formal-adjudication-hearings-and-judicial-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/?p=56","title":{"rendered":"5 U.S.C. \u00a7 554: Formal Adjudication, Hearings, and Judicial Review"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Section 554 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code sets the ground rules for formal adjudication by federal agencies. It applies whenever another federal statute requires an agency to decide a matter &#8220;on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing,&#8221; and it dictates the notice a party must receive, the chance to settle, the separation between prosecutors and decision-makers, and the framework that connects to the hearing and decision provisions in Sections 556 and 557.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span> Agencies like the FTC, SEC, and EPA use these procedures to revoke licenses, impose penalties, and resolve enforcement actions against specific parties.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"2\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-2\">2<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-2\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"2\">Federal Trade Commission. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/legal-library\/browse\/cases-proceedings\/adjudicative-proceedings\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Adjudicative Proceedings<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h2>When the Statute Applies<\/h2>\n<p>Section 554 kicks in only when a separate federal statute requires the agency to decide a case &#8220;on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.&#8221; That phrase is the trigger. If the governing law merely says the agency &#8220;may&#8221; hold a hearing or leaves the process to agency discretion, the formal requirements of Section 554 do not automatically apply.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Courts draw a sharp line between formal adjudication under Sections 554, 556, and 557 and informal adjudication under the much thinner requirements of Section 555. The Supreme Court illustrated the difference in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990), noting that formal adjudication requires notice of the factual and legal matters at issue, an opportunity to submit facts and arguments, and a structured hearing, none of which were required for the informal determination in that case.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"3\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-3\">3<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-3\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"3\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/496\/633\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">PBG Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Adjudication also differs from rulemaking. Rulemaking creates policies of general application; adjudication resolves disputes involving particular parties. The proceeding resembles a bench trial, with an administrative law judge presiding, witnesses testifying, and a decision grounded in the record.<\/p>\n<h2>What Section 554 Does Not Cover<\/h2>\n<p>The statute carves out six categories of agency action that do not require its formal procedures, even when another statute otherwise calls for adjudication on the record:<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Matters subject to de novo review in a court, since the court will retry the facts and law independently.<\/li>\n<li>Selection or tenure of federal employees, with one carve-back: administrative law judges appointed under Section 3105 do keep the statute&#8217;s protections when their own positions are at stake.<\/li>\n<li>Proceedings that turn entirely on inspections, tests, or elections rather than contested testimony.<\/li>\n<li>Military or foreign affairs functions.<\/li>\n<li>Cases where the agency is acting as an agent for a court.<\/li>\n<li>Certification of worker representatives, which follows separate labor-law procedures.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>One boundary worth flagging, because it causes confusion: the APA&#8217;s rulemaking provision in Section 553 exempts decisions about public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. That exemption sits in Section 553, not Section 554. An agency handing out research grants may be free from notice-and-comment rulemaking without being free from the adjudication rules discussed here.<\/p>\n<h2>Notice a Party Must Receive<\/h2>\n<p>Before an agency can hold a formal hearing, it must give all affected parties timely notice covering three things: the time and place of the hearing, the legal authority for the proceeding, and the factual and legal issues at stake.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Due process precedent reinforces the requirement. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &#038; Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), the Court held that notice must be reasonably designed to actually reach the people affected; obscure publication does not suffice when the agency knows the parties.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"4\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-4\">4<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-4\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"4\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/339\/306\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)<\/a><\/span> Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), held that notice must be detailed enough to let the recipient prepare a real defense, including confronting adverse evidence and presenting their own arguments.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"5\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-5\">5<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-5\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"5\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/397\/254\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Agencies deliver notice through certified mail, electronic communication, or Federal Register publication, depending on the governing statute and the agency&#8217;s regulations. Defective notice can derail the proceeding. A party who can show the notice was vague, incomplete, or never delivered has grounds to challenge the resulting decision on appeal.<\/p>\n<h2>Chance to Settle Before Hearing<\/h2>\n<p>Section 554 does not push every dispute straight to a hearing. Before the formal proceeding begins, the agency must give interested parties the opportunity to submit facts, arguments, and settlement proposals when time and the public interest permit.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"6\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-6\">6<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-6\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"6\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 U.S. Code 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span> Only if the parties cannot resolve the matter does the case proceed to a full hearing under Sections 556 and 557.<\/p>\n<p>Many enforcement actions settle. When they do, the result is typically a consent order that binds both sides. Violating a consent order can trigger additional penalties without the agency having to re-prove the original conduct, so parties considering settlement are trading the right to contest the charges for certainty about the outcome.<\/p>\n<h2>Separation of Functions and ALJ Independence<\/h2>\n<p>One of Section 554&#8217;s core protections is the wall between the people who investigate or prosecute a case and the person who decides it. The presiding officer cannot consult any person or party about a disputed fact unless all parties get notice and a chance to participate. The officer also cannot be supervised by anyone in the agency&#8217;s investigative or prosecutorial arm.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The statute goes further. An employee involved in investigating or prosecuting a case cannot participate in deciding that case or a factually related one, except as a witness or counsel in the public hearing. Limited exceptions apply to initial licensing decisions, public utility rate cases, and decisions made by the agency head or commission members themselves.<\/p>\n<p>Administrative law judges sit at the center of this independence requirement. They serve as both judge and fact-finder, with authority to issue subpoenas, rule on evidence, examine witnesses, and issue initial decisions.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"7\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-7\">7<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-7\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"7\">Administrative Conference of the United States. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acus.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/35_ALJ%20Basics.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Administrative Law Judge Basics<\/a><\/span> In Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court held that SEC administrative law judges are &#8220;Officers of the United States&#8221; under the Appointments Clause, meaning they must be appointed by the President, a court, or a department head rather than by lower-level agency staff. When an ALJ was improperly appointed, the remedy is a new hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"8\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-8\">8<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-8\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"8\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/585\/17-130\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h2>How the Hearing and Decision Fit In<\/h2>\n<p>Section 554 sets up the hearing; Sections 556 and 557 run it. Under Section 556, each party has the right to present testimony and documents, submit rebuttal evidence, and cross-examine opposing witnesses as needed for full disclosure of the facts. The party proposing a rule or seeking a sanction carries the burden of proof, and no sanction can be imposed unless the decision rests on reliable and substantial evidence drawn from the whole record.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"9\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-9\">9<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-9\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"9\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:556%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 556 &#8211; Hearings; Presiding Employees; Powers and Duties; Burden of Proof; Evidence; Record as Basis of Decision<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Under Section 557, the ALJ issues an initial or recommended decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law on every material issue, the reasoning behind them, and the specific order, sanction, or relief imposed or denied. Parties may submit proposed findings and file exceptions with supporting reasons. If no party appeals within the time the agency&#8217;s rules allow, the initial decision becomes final automatically. If the agency reviews it, the agency has all the powers it would have had if it decided the case in the first instance, though it can narrow the issues on review.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"10\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-10\">10<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-10\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"10\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:557%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 U.S. Code 557 &#8211; Initial Decisions; Conclusiveness; Review<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h2>Declaratory Orders Under Section 554(e)<\/h2>\n<p>Section 554(e) gives agencies discretion to issue a declaratory order to end a controversy or clear up uncertainty about how the agency&#8217;s rules apply to a particular situation.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:554%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 554 &#8211; Adjudications<\/a><\/span> A declaratory order carries the same legal weight as any other agency order.<\/p>\n<p>These orders help when a regulated party needs clarity about whether a planned action would violate agency rules, whether a product falls within the agency&#8217;s jurisdiction, or how an ambiguous regulation applies to specific facts. The order binds the agency and the named party on the facts assumed in it. The agency retains full discretion over whether to issue one and can decline a request without explanation.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"11\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-11\">11<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-11\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"11\">Administrative Conference of the United States. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acus.gov\/document\/declaratory-orders\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Declaratory Orders<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h2>Judicial Review of a Final Decision<\/h2>\n<p>A party unhappy with a final agency decision can seek judicial review in federal court, but generally must first exhaust the agency&#8217;s own appeal process. Section 706 directs courts to decide all relevant questions of law, interpret statutes, and determine whether the agency acted within its authority.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"12\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-12\">12<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-12\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"12\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:706%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 USC 706 &#8211; Scope of Review<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Courts can set aside agency action on several grounds:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Arbitrary and capricious action, where the agency failed to examine relevant data, ignored an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation that contradicts the evidence.<\/li>\n<li>Violation of constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection.<\/li>\n<li>Action beyond the statutory authority Congress gave the agency.<\/li>\n<li>Failure to follow legally required procedures.<\/li>\n<li>Findings unsupported by substantial evidence in formal adjudications under Sections 556 and 557.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The most significant recent change came in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), where the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference. Courts must now exercise their own independent judgment on questions of statutory meaning, even when a statute is ambiguous. Agency interpretations may still be considered for their persuasive value under the older Skidmore standard, weighing the thoroughness of the reasoning and consistency with past positions, but they no longer control.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"13\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-13\">13<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-13\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"13\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/603\/22-451\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)<\/a><\/span> For anyone appealing an adjudication that turns on statutory interpretation, this shift is a meaningful advantage.<\/p>\n<h3>Constitutional Limits After Jarkesy<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court added a further constraint in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), holding that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the defendant a jury trial in federal court. The agency cannot try the case before its own ALJ and impose fines that can reach $725,000 per violation. Because the SEC&#8217;s anti-fraud enforcement closely mirrors common-law fraud, the Court concluded it falls on the &#8220;legal&#8221; side of the line where jury trial rights apply, and rejected the government&#8217;s &#8220;public rights&#8221; argument.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"14\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-14\">14<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-14\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"14\">Justia. <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/603\/22-859\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The implications extend beyond securities. Any agency seeking civil monetary penalties through in-house adjudication for conduct resembling a common-law claim faces potential Seventh Amendment challenges, and respondents in agency enforcement have a viable argument for moving the case to an Article III court.<\/p>\n<h2>Recovering Attorney Fees After You Win<\/h2>\n<p>Winning an adjudication can still leave a party with a substantial legal bill. The Equal Access to Justice Act requires agencies to reimburse a prevailing party&#8217;s attorney fees and litigation expenses unless the agency can show its position was &#8220;substantially justified.&#8221; The application must be filed within 30 days of the final decision and include an itemized statement of actual time and rates.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"15\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-15\">15<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-15\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"15\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:504%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 U.S. Code 504 &#8211; Costs and Fees of Parties<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Eligibility is limited. The statute covers individuals, small businesses, and other qualifying entities, not large corporations. Attorney fees are capped at $125 per hour unless the agency has adopted a higher rate by regulation. An agency can also reduce or deny an award if the party unreasonably prolonged the proceeding. For a small business or individual who successfully fights off an unjustified enforcement action, EAJA can turn a hollow win into a meaningful one.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"15\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001670000000000000000_56\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-15\">15<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001670000000000000000_56-15\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"15\">Office of the Law Revision Counsel. <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:504%20edition:prelim)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5 U.S. Code 504 &#8211; Costs and Fees of Parties<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Learn how 5 USC 554 governs formal federal agency adjudication, from notice and pre-hearing steps through the hearing, judicial review, and fee recovery.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitution-government-civil-rights","article","has-excerpt","has-avatar","has-author","has-date","has-comment-count","has-category-meta","has-read-more","thumbnail-"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=56"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=56"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=56"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fedlaws.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=56"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}