行政決定者的思維過程不受探索嗎？——以美國行政裁決為中心的考察

Are the Mental Processes of Administrative Decision-Makers not Subject to Exploration? ——A Study Centered on Administrative adjudication in the United States

司法機構與行政機構在功能和性質上存在顯著差異。與法院相比，行政機構在所處領域具有專業性和權威性，能夠做出正確和高效的決定。在絕大多數情況下，法院對行政機構之決定應當保持較大程度的尊讓，不應探索行政決定者的思維過程，這是摩根原則的內在邏輯。然而，法院對行政機構的恭敬態度並不意味著放棄司法審查職責。原因在於，行政機構掌握的知識和信息可能僅僅具有局部正確性，在某些領域，行政機構甚至無力獲取到絕對正確的知識和信息，在論證行政決定的合理性時，行政機構可能難以尋找到終極的正確答案。概言之，行政機構的專業性和權威性並不一定能夠支撐行政決定的終極正確性。因此，在適當的時候，法院可以要求行政決定者說明所做決定的合法性和合理性，尤其是闡明涉及複雜問題時的具體的邏輯推理過程。從司法實踐來看，如果行政決定者明顯沒有考量聽證意見，存在強烈惡意或不當行為，或者沒有遵守正當程序原則，那麼法院可能探索行政決定者的思維過程。

There are significant differences in functions and nature between judicial agencies and administrative agencies. Compared with courts, administrative agencies are professional and authoritative in their fields and can make correct and efficient decisions. In the vast majority of cases, courts should maintain a greater degree of respect for the decisions of administrative agencies and should not explore the mental process of administrative decision-makers. This is the internal logic of the Morgan principle. However, the courts’ deferential approach to administrative agencies does not mean an abdication of judicial review responsibilities. The reason is that the knowledge and information held by administrative agencies may only be partially correct. In some areas, administrative agencies are even unable to obtain absolutely correct knowledge and information. When demonstrating the rationality of administrative decisions, administrative agencies may struggle to find the ultimate right answer. In short, the professionalism and authority of administrative agencies do not necessarily support the ultimate correctness of administrative decisions. Therefore, when appropriate, the court can require the administrative decision-makers to explain the legality and rationality of the decision, especially to clarify the specific logical reasoning process when involving complex issues. From the perspective of judicial practice, if the administrative decision-maker obviously failed to consider the hearing opinions, showed strong malice or improper behavior, or failed to comply with the principle of due process, then the court may explore the administrative decision-maker’s mental process.