There has been discussion for many years about what constitutes informality and formality in administrative law. Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of government administrative agencies, including regulating, adjudicating, or enforcing a specific regulatory program (Harrington, 2009). Rulemaking and adjudication apply to both formal and informal hearings. Whenever the permitting statute requires a hearing on the record, this would be a formal hearing, and informal hearings are completed without records and without adherence to evidentiary rules, and final decisions are made by the agency (Harrington, 2009) . This article will briefly discuss the continuum of advantages and disadvantages of legal formality through administrative law. Administrative law is designed to control and correct administrative government and focuses on procedural issues of fairness and accuracy in government decision making (Harrington, 2009). To ensure fairness in administrative proceedings within federal government agencies, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 was created (Harrington, 2009). The APA also establishes a process that allows U.S. federal courts to directly review agency decisions. The APA has four distinct administrative areas that it governs: (1) adjudication, the process of hearing and deciding disputes; (2) regulation, the procedures for developing and modifying regulatory standards; (3) administrative agency discretion, defined in the statute, which creates an agency and reviewing courts must defer to the statute; and (4) judicial review, which establishes the standards that courts must apply when reviewing the actions of entities (Harrington, 2009). Administrative law governs the government…middle of paper…and the formal judicial process takes place and if there is still no resolution, the case will be presented to an administrative law judge at a hearing (Harrington, 2009 ). The main challenges of formal and informal law concern how to maintain the neutrality of law. Designing a system of checks and balances that minimizes the risks of bureaucratic arbitrariness, while allowing agencies the flexibility they need to act effectively, can fall anywhere on the informality-formality continuum, and when courts continually affirm the Agencies' authorities to make informal decisions or use informal procedures, such as mediation, are putting a stamp of approval on the informal dimensions of administration (Harrington, 2009). Works CitedHarrington, C.B., & Carter, L.H. (2009). Administrative Law and Politics: Cases and Commentaries (4th ed.). Washington, DC