Legislation And Regulation Law Term Paper Research

Differences between the APA and MSAPA
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Differences between the APA and MSAPA
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was enacted on June 11, 1946. It is the federal statute in the US which governs the approach that administrative agencies of the federal government can oppose and establish regulations (Rubin, 2003). It also grants the federal courts in the country oversight over all the agency actions. On the other hand, a Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act (MSAPA) was issued in 1961 and later revised in 1981 (Bloomenthal, 1963). The aim of the Act is to ensure uniformity among state agencies regarding the development of procedural safeguards. This is important especially when there are cases of individual privileges at stake. It was approved by the Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws in late 2010.
Notably, there are many differences between the federal APA and the MSAPA. Some are philosophical, reflecting divergent policy preferences or divergent weights attached to conflicting values. Other differences between the APA and the MSAPA are prescriptive. That is, one may omit steps required by the other or permit those steps to be satisfied in divergent ways. The differences between the two arise in terms or provisions in different sections.
Subject: Self-Representation
Sections of the APA and the MSAPA in which the subject/topic is treated
In the APA, the issue of self-regulation is treated in subsection (h). In the MSAPA, it is addressed under Section 4-203 (b).
How the two treatments vary
The main difference between the two Acts is their clarity on defining the issue and how it has been addressed. In this case, MSAPA fails to expressly confer a right to self-representation in the event of contested cases. The lack of such a provision in MSAPA is a reflection of the belief that a broad right to self-representation is not appropriate for an APA which is applied globally to all contested cases (Hickman, 2006). Such contested cases range from the simplest of the proceedings to the most complex ones. In the United States, states have the option of providing a right to self-representation in some statutes in which evidentiary hearings are required, and the lack of a corresponding right in MSAPA should not be considered a way of discouraging such legislation.
The enactment in this case in MSAPA is meant to act as a model for states, but it out rightly fails to recognize the right to self-representation. It does not include any requirements or recommendations on how judges should ensure that individuals who are self-represented are equally heard, and also fails to recognize the constitutional need for independence for institutions for the administrative judges; they should be able to make their decisions without getting any form of political interference.
The Superior of the Two Approaches
I find the APA to be more superior to the MSAPA in terms of defining the issue of self-representation in court. The APA is very clear on it, and gives guidelines on how it is to be done. On the other hand, the MSAPA fails to give guidelines on the issue. This has been an issue of contention among lawmakers, especially the critics of the MSAPA who...