Criticism of U S administrative law
What is U.S. Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the actions of federal agencies—bodies created by Congress to implement and enforce laws (e.g., EPA, FDA, SEC). These agencies have rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers. Administrative law balances agency expertise and efficiency with constitutional principles like separation of powers and due process.
Major Criticisms of U.S. Administrative Law
Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power ("Delegation Doctrine")
Lack of Accountability and Democratic Control
Judicial Deference to Agencies (Chevron Deference)
Due Process Concerns in Administrative Adjudications
Agency Overreach and Bureaucratic Complexity
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power
Criticism: Congress delegates broad authority to agencies, undermining the separation of powers by giving legislative power to unelected bureaucrats.
Case: J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Facts: Congress delegated authority to the President to impose tariffs.
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation under the "intelligible principle" test, meaning Congress must provide clear guidelines for the agency.
Criticism: While allowing delegation, the decision paved the way for broad agency discretion, often criticized as giving agencies “legislative” power without sufficient oversight.
Case: Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) (The "Hot Oil" case)
Facts: Congress delegated power to the President to prohibit interstate shipment of petroleum in excess of state quotas.
Holding: The Court struck down the delegation as unconstitutional because Congress provided no clear standards.
Significance: Reinforced the criticism that some delegations are too vague, raising separation of powers concerns.
2. Lack of Accountability and Democratic Control
Criticism: Agencies wield significant power without direct accountability to the electorate; agency heads often insulated from political pressure.
Case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts: President Hoover tried to remove a Federal Trade Commissioner, but the FTC was independent.
Holding: The Court ruled that Congress can limit the President’s power to remove agency officials, preserving agency independence.
Criticism: This limits Presidential control, potentially reducing democratic accountability, as agency officials can act with minimal oversight.
3. Judicial Deference to Agencies (Chevron Deference)
Criticism: Courts often defer to agency interpretations of statutes, arguably allowing agencies to “make law,” which undermines judicial review and separation of powers.
Case: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: The EPA interpreted ambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Holding: The Court established the "Chevron two-step" test, deferring to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Criticism: Critics argue this gives agencies too much power to interpret laws and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on agency overreach.
4. Due Process Concerns in Administrative Adjudications
Criticism: Agency adjudications often lack procedural safeguards that courts require, raising concerns about fairness and rights of individuals.
Case: Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts: Welfare benefits were terminated without a prior hearing.
Holding: The Court held that due process requires a hearing before termination of welfare benefits.
Impact: Highlighted that agencies must provide adequate procedural protections.
Case: Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Facts: Property owners were assessed a tax without a hearing.
Holding: The Court ruled that when decisions affect individual rights, a hearing is required.
Criticism: Despite such rulings, agencies sometimes conduct informal proceedings lacking full due process protections.
5. Agency Overreach and Bureaucratic Complexity
Criticism: Agencies sometimes issue vague or overly complex regulations that burden individuals and businesses, often with little transparency.
Case: FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Facts: FDA tried to regulate tobacco products.
Holding: The Court held that the FDA exceeded its statutory authority because Congress had explicitly allowed tobacco sales.
Significance: This case shows agency overreach where the agency tries to expand power beyond Congressional intent, highlighting the problem of bureaucratic overreach.
Additional Important Cases Highlighting Criticism
6. Sierra Club v. Costle (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Facts: The EPA was challenged for lax enforcement of environmental laws.
Holding: Court pushed agencies to be more accountable and transparent.
Criticism: Courts sometimes struggle to hold agencies accountable effectively.
7. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988)
Facts: Agencies tried to apply rules retroactively.
Holding: The Court limited retroactive agency rulemaking.
Criticism: Agencies sometimes act unpredictably, hurting reliance interests.
Summary Table of Criticism with Case Examples
| Criticism | Case | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Excessive delegation | J.W. Hampton; Panama Refining | “Intelligible principle” standard; limits on vague delegation |
| Lack of accountability | Humphrey’s Executor | Limits President’s removal power; weakens democratic control |
| Judicial deference (Chevron) | Chevron U.S.A. | Courts defer to agencies, raising separation of powers issues |
| Due process concerns | Goldberg v. Kelly; Londoner | Agencies must provide hearings; sometimes procedural gaps |
| Agency overreach & complexity | FDA v. Brown & Williamson | Agencies can exceed authority, causing regulatory uncertainty |
Conclusion
U.S. administrative law is essential for modern governance but faces serious criticisms:
Delegation sometimes gives agencies too much legislative power.
Agencies often operate with limited democratic accountability.
Courts' deference to agencies (Chevron) weakens judicial checks.
Agency adjudications may lack due process protections.
Bureaucratic complexity leads to overreach and confusion.
These issues are part of an ongoing debate about balancing agency expertise and efficiency with constitutional safeguards and democratic principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments