Delegated legislation in the USA
Delegated Legislation in the USA: Overview
What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation (also called delegated rulemaking) occurs when Congress delegates legislative authority to administrative agencies.
Because Congress cannot directly manage all details of complex policy, agencies create rules, regulations, and orders under authority granted by statute.
These rules have the force of law, though they are not enacted by Congress directly.
Constitutional Background
The U.S. Constitution vests legislative power in Congress (Article I, Section 1).
Delegation raises the nondelegation doctrine, questioning how much legislative power Congress can constitutionally delegate.
The Supreme Court has generally allowed broad delegations if Congress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide agencies.
Purposes of Delegated Legislation
To allow expertise-driven policymaking.
To enable flexible and timely regulation.
To handle technical and complex issues that Congress cannot manage in detail.
Key Legal Principles
Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers without providing clear standards.
Intelligible Principle Standard: Congress must provide clear policy guidance to agencies.
Judicial Review: Courts review agency rules for adherence to statutory authority and procedural requirements.
Key Cases on Delegated Legislation in the USA
1. J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Facts: The case involved a tariff statute delegating authority to the President to adjust rates.
Issue: Whether such delegation violated the nondelegation doctrine.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the delegation because Congress provided an “intelligible principle” to guide executive action.
Significance: Established the modern test allowing broad delegations as long as Congress provides clear policy guidance.
2. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act authorized the President to prohibit transportation of petroleum in excess of state quotas.
Issue: Whether the statute gave too much discretion without clear standards.
Holding: The Court struck down the delegation for lacking an intelligible principle.
Significance: One of the few cases where the Court invalidated a delegation for being too broad.
3. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Facts: Challenged the National Industrial Recovery Act’s delegation of power to regulate wages and hours.
Issue: Whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power.
Holding: The Court invalidated the delegation for failing to provide adequate standards.
Significance: Reinforced limits on delegation when Congress provides no meaningful guidance.
4. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001)
Facts: EPA set air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.
Issue: Whether the statute provided an intelligible principle for EPA rulemaking.
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation, confirming the broad acceptance of the intelligible principle test.
Significance: Reaffirmed Congress’s ability to delegate wide rulemaking authority within limits.
5. Mistretta v. United States (1989)
Facts: The constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act creating the U.S. Sentencing Commission was challenged.
Issue: Whether Congress improperly delegated legislative power to the Commission.
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation, emphasizing that Congress provided sufficient guidance.
Significance: Confirmed that delegation is constitutional as long as Congress sets policy goals.
6. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Facts: EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was challenged.
Issue: While mainly about judicial deference, it implicates agency rulemaking authority.
Holding: Courts must defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Significance: Reinforced the practical effect of delegated legislation by upholding agency authority.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. US (1928) | Delegation with intelligible principle | Upheld delegation with clear standards |
| Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) | Excessive delegation without guidance | Struck down delegation lacking standards |
| A.L.A. Schechter Poultry v. US (1935) | Lack of guidance in delegation | Invalidated broad delegation |
| Whitman v. ATA (2001) | Intelligible principle test reaffirmed | Upheld broad delegation with clear statutory guide |
| Mistretta v. US (1989) | Delegation to Sentencing Commission | Upheld delegation with policy goals |
| Chevron v. NRDC (1984) | Judicial deference to agency rules | Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretation |
Additional Points
Congress often delegates rulemaking authority but retains oversight, e.g., through:
Congressional Review Act.
Requiring notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Delegated legislation must follow APA procedures ensuring transparency and public participation.
Courts may invalidate rules exceeding delegated authority (ultra vires) or violating due process.
Conclusion
Delegated legislation is essential for effective federal governance in the USA.
The Constitution permits delegation within limits defined by the intelligible principle.
The Supreme Court balances agency expertise and democratic accountability.
Key cases have established the legal framework governing the delegation and judicial review of agency rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments