Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement of procedural due process that the official rendering a decision in an adjudicative proceeding must have no personal bias or prior involvement in the matter and must base the decision solely on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Welfare Investigator Decides Own Probe
Isabelle Inman received need-based food vouchers from the City of Clarksville. An investigator interviewed her coworkers about unreported tips and recommended termination based on those statements. The same investigator then reviewed the file and issued the termination order without any hearing. Isabelle challenged the process, arguing that the decision lacked an impartial decisionmaker because the investigator had participated in gathering the adverse evidence.
School Board Reviews Its Own Firing
Ilana Isaacs, a public school teacher, faced dismissal after writing a letter critical of the board. The board members who had publicly condemned her letter conducted the hearing and voted to terminate her employment. Ilana argued that the board could not serve as an impartial decisionmaker because its members had already formed and expressed views on the very conduct at issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Course Outlines
Pickering v. Board of Education391 U.S. 563 (1968)
Prison Official Hears Own Charges
Isla Ireland, an inmate, was charged with disciplinary infractions by a guard. The same guard who filed the charges presided over the hearing, heard testimony, and imposed sanctions. Isla contended that the guard could not act as an impartial decisionmaker because he had initiated the proceeding and possessed a direct interest in the outcome.
Wolff v. McDonnell418 U.S. 539 (1974)
Legislature Overrides Its Own Order
India Inoue, a deportee, obtained a suspension of removal from an immigration judge. Congress then passed a resolution directing her removal without any further hearing. India argued that Congress could not serve as an impartial decisionmaker because it had already prejudged her case by enacting a targeted legislative command.
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha462 U.S. 919, 954 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2785 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d 317
Supervisor Decides Employee Dismissal
Irene Ingalls, a federal employee, faced termination for alleged misconduct. Her immediate supervisor, who had recommended the dismissal and participated in the investigation, conducted the hearing and upheld the termination. Irene claimed the supervisor could not qualify as an impartial decisionmaker because of his prior involvement in proposing the adverse action.
Arnett v. Kennedy416 U.S. 134 (1974)
Detention Review by Charging Officer
Isabella Ingram, a noncitizen in removal proceedings, sought release on bond. The same immigration officer who had issued the notice to appear and recommended detention conducted the bond hearing and denied release. Isabella argued that the officer could not serve as an impartial decisionmaker because he had already taken a position on her detention.
Demore v. Hyung Joon Kim538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What specific protections does an impartial decisionmaker requirement provide in welfare termination hearings?+
The decisionmaker must have no prior involvement in the investigation or proposal to terminate benefits and must base the ruling solely on evidence presented at the hearing. This prevents the same official who gathered adverse information from also deciding the case.
Does a judge who previously testified about facts in an internal grievance hearing qualify as an impartial decisionmaker in later litigation?+
No. When a judge has given sworn testimony on disputed facts that form the core of the current case, her impartiality may reasonably be questioned and disqualification is required to preserve the appearance of neutrality.
When does a judicial candidate's campaign statement violate the impartial decisionmaker requirement?+
A candidate violates the requirement by pledging to treat a class of future litigants more harshly or promising specific outcomes regardless of the facts and law presented in individual cases.
397 U.S. 254 (1970)Constitutional Law
…his statement need not amount to a full opinion or even formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. And, of course, an impartial decision maker is essential. Cf. In re Murchison , 349 U. S. 133 (1955); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath , 339 U. S. 33, 45-46 (1950). We agree with the District Court that prior involvement in some aspects…