Agency enforcement powers
Agency Enforcement Powers
Administrative agencies in the United States are created by Congress (or in some cases, state legislatures) to carry out specific regulatory purposes. To make their rules effective, agencies are often given enforcement powers that resemble judicial and executive functions. These powers may include:
Investigatory Powers – agencies can issue subpoenas, conduct inspections, and require reports.
Rule Enforcement – agencies can bring enforcement actions against violators of statutes or regulations.
Administrative Adjudication – agencies can hold hearings (formal or informal) to decide cases.
Civil and Criminal Penalties – some agencies may impose fines, revoke licenses, or refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Judicial Review – courts can review agency enforcement actions to ensure they comply with statutory and constitutional limits.
The Supreme Court has developed doctrines to balance agency discretion with individual rights, ensuring agencies do not abuse their enforcement powers.
Case Law Explanations
1. Heckler v. Chaney (1985)
Facts: Prisoners on death row challenged the FDA’s refusal to prevent the use of certain drugs for lethal injection.
Issue: Can courts review an agency’s decision not to enforce the law?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action is generally presumed unreviewable, since it involves agency discretion (resource allocation, priorities, etc.).
Significance: This case highlights that enforcement powers are broad, and courts rarely interfere with an agency’s choice not to enforce.
2. United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950)
Facts: The FTC issued orders requiring Morton Salt to produce information about its pricing practices.
Issue: Did the FTC exceed its investigatory/enforcement powers by demanding information?
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the FTC’s power, ruling that agencies can issue subpoenas or information requests as long as they are reasonable and relevant to their duties.
Significance: Agencies have wide investigatory powers, even if no formal complaint has yet been filed.
3. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. (1978)
Facts: OSHA inspectors attempted to enter a business to conduct a workplace safety inspection without a warrant. The business owner objected.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to agency enforcement inspections?
Holding: The Court held that warrantless inspections violate the Fourth Amendment, except in closely regulated industries.
Significance: Agencies’ enforcement powers are limited by constitutional protections; investigatory authority must balance with privacy rights.
4. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts: President Roosevelt tried to remove an FTC commissioner for policy differences.
Issue: Could the President unilaterally remove an independent agency official?
Holding: The Court said no—Congress intended the FTC to be independent, and its commissioners could only be removed for specific statutory reasons.
Significance: This case protected the independence of enforcement decisions in regulatory agencies, preventing excessive presidential control.
5. INS v. Chadha (1983)
Facts: Congress attempted to use a “legislative veto” to block the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from suspending a deportation order.
Issue: Could Congress control agency enforcement by legislative veto?
Holding: The Court struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional (violated separation of powers and bicameralism).
Significance: Agencies exercise enforcement powers delegated by Congress, but Congress cannot interfere directly in individual enforcement actions outside the lawmaking process.
6. FTC v. Ruberoid Co. (1952)
Facts: The FTC ordered Ruberoid to stop discriminatory pricing practices.
Issue: Could the FTC enforce broad rules against unfair trade practices?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that agencies may define and enforce standards of fair competition, even if they involve broad discretion.
Significance: Confirms agencies’ strong role in shaping market practices through enforcement.
7. Sackett v. EPA (2012)
Facts: The EPA issued a compliance order against homeowners for filling wetlands without a permit. The homeowners wanted to challenge the order immediately in court.
Issue: Can regulated parties seek judicial review of compliance orders before facing penalties?
Holding: The Court ruled that compliance orders are subject to judicial review under the APA.
Significance: Agencies cannot insulate their enforcement actions from judicial oversight.
Conclusion
Agencies hold broad enforcement powers—from investigation to punishment.
Courts generally defer to agency discretion (e.g., Heckler v. Chaney).
But constitutional limits (e.g., Marshall v. Barlow’s – 4th Amendment) and statutory limits (e.g., Sackett v. EPA – judicial review) ensure agencies cannot act unchecked.
Independence of agencies (Humphrey’s Executor) and separation of powers (INS v. Chadha) also shape how enforcement is exercised.
RELATED Blog
0 comments