Whether a Commissioner of Accounts violates the Due Process Clause by acting as both an accuser and adjudicator in fiduciary oversight proceedings

QUESTION PRESENTED It is a well-established maxim “aliquis non debet esse iudex in”—no one should be a judge in their own cause. The Commonwealth of Virginia, however, has violated this maxim, allowing quasi-judicial officers to act as accuser and adjudicator, resulting in structural violation of the Due Process Clause. While this particular office is present only in Virginia and West Virginia, this is not an isolated issue. Commissioners of Accounts in Virginia oversee all conservators, guardians, executors, and other fiduciaries. In Fairfax County, Virginia alone, this generally accounts for 1,800 new matters each year. Indeed, amicus curiae below, the Virginia Conference of Commissioners of Accounts, supported the outcome of these cases, showing that similar due process violations by commissioners are likely to recur. The Question presented in this case is: Whether a Commissioner of Accounts—a quasi-judicial officer appointed by the state court to supervise fiduciaries— violates the Due Process Clause, by acting as both an accuser and adjudicator, when she (1) convenes an evidentiary hearing, despite the complaining parties’ lack of standing, and declares herself to be an interested, “not neutral” party, (2) assumes the role of investigator, based on the improperly received evidence, and files a petition to disqualify the fiduciary and forfeit its bond, and (8) simultaneously seeks and is granted authority by the state court to preside over a hearing to make findings on that very issue—whether to disqualify the fiduciary and forfeit the bond.