Colorado Administrative Proceedings and Due Process
August 2026
Download This Article (.pdf)
This article highlights due process protections in the Administrative Procedure Act and discusses the challenges of balancing due process with procedural efficiency, specifically in the context of benefits hearings.
You are most likely familiar with Colorado’s state court system, which encompasses county courts, district courts, the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court. However, attorneys in Colorado should also be aware of the state’s extensive administrative adjudication system, which affects many aspects of our daily lives, including drivers’ licensing, public benefits, and taxation. This article provides a basic overview of Colorado’s administrative adjudication system before discussing Colorado’s Administrative Procedure Act, focusing on provisions intended to ensure that parties in administrative adjudicatory proceedings are granted due process of law. Finally, the article addresses current issues relating to balancing appellants’ due process rights with administrative adjudicators’ procedural efficiency, including benefits and challenges of online hearings, the lack of a right to counsel, and pros and cons of a centralized administrative court system as compared to decentralized administrative hearings.
Colorado’s Administrative Adjudication System
Colorado’s state government includes a centralized body for administrative hearings called the Office of Administrative Courts. The Office of Administrative Courts adjudicates cases for more than 50 state governmental bodies.1 Cases heard at the Office of Administrative Courts include those relating to public benefits (e.g., Medicaid and Colorado Works), child abuse or neglect, professional licensure/discipline, workers’ compensation, special education, and workplace discrimination.2
Administrative adjudicating bodies in Colorado are also housed within other governmental bodies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment (family leave and unemployment benefits appeals), the Department of Human Services (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program appeals), the Public Utilities Commission, the Air Quality Control Commission, the Energy & Carbon Management Commission, the State Personnel Board (state employee and job applicant appeals), and the Secretary of State’s Office (cases relating to campaign finance and notaries public), among others.3 Additionally, the Department of Revenue’s Hearings Division conducts administrative hearings on a wide variety of topics relating to licensing, including cases related to drivers and vehicles, taxation, liquor, marijuana enforcement, the auto industry, and racing.4
Colorado statutes and regulations define specific hearing processes and procedural rules for these bodies and the cases before them. Lawyers and case parties are well-advised to familiarize themselves with these particularities. However, across this wide variety of adjudicating bodies, the fundamental principles of Colorado’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA), CRS Title 24, Article 4, still apply.
The Administrative Procedure Act and Due Process Protections
The APA “applies to every agency of the state having statewide territorial jurisdiction except those in the legislative or judicial branches, courts-martial, military commissions, and arbitration and mediation functions.”5 Section 24-4-105 of the APA, which relates to administrative hearings, opens with the statement, “In order to assure that all parties to any agency adjudicatory proceeding are accorded due process of law, the provisions of this section shall be applicable.”6
The concept of due process in state government stems from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which stipulates that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”7 Article II, § 25 of the Colorado Constitution contains similar language.8 Additionally, Colorado courts have held that “the essence of procedural due process is fundamental fairness,” which consists of “advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”9
Accordingly, the APA includes provisions protecting appellants’ right to be heard via administrative adjudicatory proceedings, including (emphasis added):
- CRS § 24-4-105(2)(a): “In any such proceeding in which an opportunity for agency adjudicatory hearing is required under the state constitution or by this or any other statute, the parties are entitled to a hearing and decision in conformity with this section. Any person entitled to notice of a hearing shall be given timely notice of the time, place, and nature thereof, the legal authority and jurisdiction under which it is to be held, and the matters of fact and law asserted. . . . In fixing the time and place for a hearing, due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties and their representatives.”
- CRS § 24-4-105(7): “[E]very party to the proceeding shall have the right to present his case or defense by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”
Section 24-4-106 of the APA also allows appellants to seek judicial review of final agency action in state district court after their administrative remedies are exhausted.10 Colorado courts have generally held that parties are required to exhaust their available administrative remedies before they can seek judicial review.11 However, district courts can nonetheless intervene if the criteria in § 24-4-106(8) are met: (1) the agency proceeding or proposed action is “clearly beyond the constitutional or statutory jurisdiction or authority of the agency”; and (2) the party seeking district court intervention makes a “showing of irreparable injury.”12
Other exceptions to the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies include situations where it is “clear beyond a doubt” that further agency administrative review would be futile because the agency will not provide the requested relief,13 and cases “when the matter in controversy raises questions of law rather than issues committed to administrative discretion and expertise.”14
Balancing Due Process With Procedural Efficiency
As noted above, many administrative hearings in Colorado relate to public benefits such as Colorado Works, Medicaid, the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, or unemployment insurance. Colorado’s administrative adjudicating bodies receive thousands of hearing requests relating to public benefits each year; thus, a constant challenge for adjudicators is balancing appellants’ due process rights with procedural efficiency.
Administrative hearings are often held online using Google Meet or Zoom for the parties’ convenience; appellants without access to a computer or smartphone call in to the hearing.15 Additionally, in certain forums, it is possible for appellants to request a hearing and/or file hearing exhibits through an online portal or via email.16 These advances have made hearings more accessible to many appellants and have allowed for more efficient filing of hearing requests and exhibits for appellants with computer and internet access.
However, appellants who do not have access to a computer, are not comfortable with using technology, or lack reliable internet access are at a disadvantage. For example, an appellant with a reliable device and internet access who did not receive hearing documents can receive them within minutes via email during a hearing. However, an appellant without access to similar technology may have to ask for their hearing to be rescheduled so they can receive the hearing documents by mail or make a trip to pick up the hearing documents in person. Or, in some cases, the appellant may feel compelled to proceed without access to the hearing documents in order to avoid delaying the hearing.
Additionally, even though the APA states that appellants are “entitled to the benefit of legal counsel of his or her own choosing,” there is no right to counsel.17 And although sources of legal aid exist in Colorado, not enough legal aid attorneys are available to meet the needs of every appellant who requests assistance.18 Furthermore, self-represented appellants who want to challenge the adjudicator’s initial decision face a multistep process that may be difficult to navigate.19 For example, pro se appellants may not realize that they are required to file exceptions to an administrative adjudicator’s initial decision in order to reserve their right to request later judicial review in state district court.20
Finally, as discussed earlier, some types of administrative hearings in Colorado are held through a centralized court system, the Office of Administrative Courts, while other types of administrative hearings are held within various agencies. This raises an important question: Is there a benefit to centralized hearings as compared to decentralized hearings for administrative review and adjudication of contested agency actions?
On the one hand, a centralized administrative court system may offer appellants and other parties more consistency and predictability, as they can become more familiar with the court’s procedures over time. On the other hand, a more decentralized system may provide adjudicators an opportunity to have more specialized knowledge of their area of law, as they are not holding hearings on a wide variety of subjects.21 Given these competing considerations, Colorado’s hybrid administrative adjudication system, involving both centralized and decentralized hearings, may strike the optimal balance between procedural consistency and specialized expertise.
Conclusion
Colorado’s administrative adjudication system, although less familiar to many than the state court system, is extensive and affects thousands of Coloradans each year. In 2023 alone, the Office of Administrative Courts, which is just one of Colorado’s many administrative adjudicating bodies, opened 9,274 cases and held 1,592 hearings.22 While the APA provides general guidelines for protecting parties’ due process rights in administrative hearings, in practice, safeguarding these rights in today’s modern environment presents numerous challenges. The practice of administrative law in Colorado will thus need to continue to grow and adapt as requests for administrative hearings increase, and Colorado attorneys will be challenged to grow and adapt alongside these changes.
Explore This Issue
After Loving
Creative Corner
By Jacqueline St. Joan
Melissa C. Meirink
Diversity on the Bench Spotlight
By Maria Garcia, with contributions from Christina Gomez
Related Topics
Notes
citation Southerland, “Colorado Administrative Proceedings and Due Process,” 55 Colo. Law. 40 (Aug. 2026), https://cl.cobar.org/features/colorado-administrative-proceedings-and-due-process.
1. Colorado Office of the State Auditor, 2358P, Office of Administrative Courts: Performance Audit 3 (Nov. 2024), https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/audits/2358p_office_of_admin_courts_accessible.pdf.
2. See Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, “Workers’ Compensation,” https://oac.colorado.gov/proceedings-services/workers-compensation; Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, “General Services,” https://oac.colorado.gov/proceedings-services/general-services.
3. See, e.g., Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, “Appeals,” https://cdle.colorado.gov/unemployment/appeals; Colorado Department of Human Services, “SNAP Hearings Unit,” https://cdhs.colorado.gov/snap-hearings-unit; Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies: Public Utilities Commission, “Organization,” https://puc.colorado.gov/pucorganization; Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, “AQCC Public Participation and Hearing Guidance,” https://cdphe.colorado.gov/aqcc-public-participation-and-hearing-guidance; Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Energy & Carbon Management Commission, “Hearings,” https://ecmc.colorado.gov/hearings; Colorado State Personnel Board, “Appeals,” https://spb.colorado.gov/appeals; Colorado Secretary of State, “Administrative Hearing Officer and Appellate Docket,” https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/info_center/HearingOfficerDocket/index.html.
4. See Colorado Department of Revenue, “Hearings Division,” https://cdor.colorado.gov/hearings-division.
5. CRS § 24-4-107.
6. CRS § 24-4-105(1).
7. US Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
8. See Colo. Const. art. II, § 25 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”).
9. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Emp., 520 P.2d 586, 588 (Colo. 1974).
10. CRS § 24-4-106(2), (4).
11. See, e.g., Moschetti v. Liquor Licensing Auth., 490 P.2d 299, 301 (Colo. 1971); Downey v. Dep’t of Rev., 653 P.2d 72, 73 (Colo.App. 1982); Kendal v. Cason, 791 P.2d 1227, 1228 (Colo.App. 1990).
12. CRS § 24-4-106(8).
13. Colorado v. Veterans Admin., 430 F.Supp. 551, 558 (D.Colo. 1977) (quoting Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Acree, 475 F.2d 1289 (D.C.Cir. 1973)).
14. Collopy v. Wildlife Comm’n, 625 P.2d 994, 1006 (Colo. 1981).
15. See, e.g., Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, Technical Guidance for Accessing Hearings Via Google Meet, https://oac.colorado.gov/sites/oac/files/documents/Technical%20Guide%20for%20Google%20Meet%20hearings.pdf.
16. See, e.g., Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, “Steps to File an Appeal Online,” https://cdle.colorado.gov/unemployment/appeals/submit-an-appeal/steps-to-file-an-appeal-online; Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, “OAC E-Filing System,” https://oac.colorado.gov/e-filing-forms/oac-e-filing-system; Colorado Department of Human Services, “How SNAP Appeals Work,” https://cdhs.colorado.gov/snap-hearings-unit.
17. See CRS § 24-4-105(9)(a) (legal counsel is “at his or her own expense”).
18. See Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado, “Barriers to Justice in the United States,” https://www.legalaidfoundation.org/barriers-to-justice.
19. See CRS §§ 24-4-105(14)(a) (administrative adjudicator prepares an initial decision served upon the parties); -105(14)(a)(I) (appellant who wishes to appeal to the agency after the initial decision must file exceptions within a prescribed time period); -105(14)(b), (15) (final agency decision); -105(14)(c), -106(4) (requirements for exercising the right to judicial review of a final agency decision).
20. See CRS §§ 24-4-105(14)(c), -106(4).
21. For more information regarding this topic, see State of Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau, Rep. 1, Hear Here or Hear There? A Review of Centralizing Administrative Hearing Functions (2020), a nationwide survey of states with centralized administrative hearing offices, https://lrb.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020_HearHereOrHearThere.pdf.
22. Colorado Office of the State Auditor, supra note 1 at 4.