US DOJ challenges corrupt administrative law system

By MICHAEL SLOVANOS
ON Febuary 20th, the US Department of Justice made a very brief, but radical and profound announcement regarding the so-called administrative law system.

“Today the Department of Justice determined that multiple layers of removal restrictions shielding administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional,” the announcement by DOJ cheif of staff Chad Mizelle read.

“Unelected and constitutionally unaccountable ALJs have exercised immense power for far too long. In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the Department is restoring constitutional accountability so that Executive Branch officials answer to the President and to the people.”

And there the statement ended, which leads us to the question of administrative law: what it is and how it works. Here is part of the very lengthy definition provided by Encyclopedia Britannica:

“The legal framework within which public administration is carried out. It derives from the need to create and develop a system of public administration under law, a concept that may be compared with the much older notion of justice under law. Since administration involves the exercise of power by the executive arm of government, administrative law is of constitutional and political, as well as juridical, importance.

“There is no universally accepted definition of administrative law, but rationally it may be held to cover the organization, powers, duties, and functions of public authorities of all kinds engaged in administration; their relations with one another and with citizens and nongovernmental bodies; legal methods of controlling public administration; and the rights and liabilities of officials.

“Administrative law is to a large extent complemented by constitutional law, and the line between them is hard to draw. The organization of a national legislature, the structure of the courts, the characteristics of a cabinet, and the role of the head of state are generally regarded as matters of constitutional law, whereas the substantive and procedural provisions relating to central and local governments and judicial review of administration are reckoned matters of administrative law.

“But some matters, such as the responsibility of ministers, cannot be exclusively assigned to either administrative or constitutional law. Some French and American jurists regard administrative law as including parts of constitutional law.”

So, while administative law might seem necessary for a functioning government, what is the problem?

The basic problem with administrative law is its expansion and rulings that violate property and constitutional rights, and it’s use for the enforcement of ideological activism e,g, environmental restrictions on development.

Typically people have found themselves victims of a “legal” ruling by an administrative court on whether such and such an environmental law was “properly” or “improperly” administered. The ruling may not even touch on the matter of whether property rights were violated.

One of the earliest notable property rights cases was in 1992, when a US Supreme Court win made South Carolina landowner David H. Lucas one of the first folk heroes of the growing private property rights movement in the US.

“Around the country, property rights advocates fight what they see as illegal government confiscation of their land through overzealous regulation, particularly in the name of environmental protection. In the Lucas case, private property activists scored one of their biggest victories to date,” the LA Times reported.

Lucas had lost the right to build on two oceanfront lots he had bought for almost $1 million after the state of South Carolina passed a law to halt beach erosion.

The state rejected his claim for compensation for the land and he appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the “taking” of private property by the government without just compensation, whether by direct condemnation or, as Lucas asserted, by destroying the value or use of his property through regulation.

In late June 1992, the justices ordered the South Carolina Supreme Court to rehear the case and to find in favor of Lucas unless the state could prove that the two homes Lucas planned to build (one for himself, another to sell) would be nuisances under pre-existing state law.

The Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, founded in the US State of Washington in 2003, clearly enunciates the importance of property rights:

“The founders of the States and the Union understood that without an individual right to own and control property, no other rights can be protected from government tyranny. Homes, personal possessions, personal safety, unrestricted travel and free speech are all placed in jeopardy once government has established the power to control or confiscate private property through general edict.

“Property rights are natural rights or human rights, and are the very foundation of a free society. These rights are further protected by the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution, and in state constitutions, such as in Article 1 Section 16 the Washington State constitution.

“Secure property rights have been a major cornerstone of the American experiment that has resulted in the highest standard of living and the most personal freedom of any people in the history of the world.”

Australians who are alarmed over the growing attacks on property rights from all levels of government could take a lesson from the organisational structure of the CAPR, which is fighting some of the most “liberal” (aka leftist) legislation in the US.

CAPR aims to present a single co-ordinated voice dedicated to preserving and protecting individual property rights and promotes legislation to preserve and protect property rights while opposing excessively burdensome legislation and regulation.

CAPR also informs voters and pro-property activists about the performance of elected officials at all levels through a bill ratings system, candidate ratings system, campaign season mailers, awards for good and bad performance, awards for important coverage of property rights issues by the media, and more.

A major property rights case in Australia was Shannons Flat NSW farmer Peter Spencer vs the Commonwealth of Australia, over restrictions had been imposed on the clearing of vegetation on his farm by reason of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) and the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Spencer brought his case under s 51 of the Australian Constitution, which provides that: “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:–
(xxxi.) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.”

Spencer’s case against the Commonwealth failed essentially because it became bogged down in a sea of legalistic mire thrown up by the Federal Court and all the High Court was able to do was make several legalistic rulings to resolve some of the complicated questions.

The Federal Court of Australia website describes the torturous legal road to getting a Constitutional Case heard, and the Spencer case is a sad reflection of that reality, and whether or not Spencer or the NSW Government was primarily responsible for the economic unviability of his farm is a moot point.

Spencer was fighting for property rights that are clearly enunciated in law but were under serious assault by governments that had sold out to a big lie that carbon posed a threat to the planet and “saving the environment” was now the primary duty of governments that under the Kyoto Agreement began trading carbon credits – one of the primary globalist scams.

Only now, in 2025, under one of the most radical American administrations ever elected, do we see a serious challenge to the tyranny of administrative law and the protection racket it runs for government abuse of constitutional right.