Minnesota Law Review

Note, Who Are They to Judge?: The Constitutionality of Delegations by Courts to Probation Officers

In order to promote judicial economy, Article III courts routinely delegate decisionmaking authority to probation officers. Probationers increasingly challenge those delegations as violating the Constitution’s command that only Article III judges shall exercise “the Judicial power.”

Courts apply either of two standards when evaluating the constitutionality of judicial delegations to probation officers. The first of these two standards—called the “core judicial functions test”—allows courts to delegate to probation officers only those powers that are not essential to the judicial role. The second standard—called the “ultimate authority test”—allows courts to delegate decision making authority to probation officers so long as some Article III court retains the power to supervise, amend, or overrule the probation officers’ decisions. As the Note explains, each of these standards is flawed, logically and in practice.

Rather than applying either of the prevailing judicial standards, the Note advocates application of a third test: courts should uphold judicial delegations to probation officers so long as the delegating court identifies some intelligible principle to guide the probation officer in exercising the delegated power. By using this intelligible principle standard to evaluate the constitutionality of judicial delegations to probation officers, courts would bring coherence and predictability to an area of the law which today is sorely lacking both.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]