Evolution of Administrative Law in the United States
Evolution of Administrative Law in the United States
Introduction
Administrative law governs the activities of federal and state government agencies. It includes rulemaking, adjudication, enforcement of regulatory agendas, and judicial review of agency actions. The evolution of administrative law reflects the growing role of government agencies in regulating complex social, economic, and political matters.
Early Period: Foundations of Agency Authority
In the early 20th century, government agencies began to grow in power. Courts were initially cautious in recognizing the legitimacy of these agencies’ authority.
1. ICC v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. (1897) (Shreveport Rate Case)
Facts:
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) sought to regulate intrastate railroad rates affecting interstate commerce.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the ICC’s authority to regulate intrastate rates that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Significance:
Early recognition of agency regulatory power beyond strict state boundaries, paving the way for broad administrative authority.
2. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Facts:
Challenged the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which allowed the President to approve “codes of fair competition” with broad discretion.
Holding:
The Court struck down the Act as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.
Significance:
Marked a limit on agency power, emphasizing the nondelegation doctrine and separation of powers. Agencies cannot wield unlimited legislative authority.
Expansion and Acceptance of Agency Power
The New Deal era and later saw a dramatic expansion of administrative agencies, responding to complex social needs.
3. Yakus v. United States (1944)
Facts:
The Court considered whether agencies could enforce regulations before judicial review.
Holding:
The Court upheld administrative enforcement with limited judicial review, recognizing agencies’ practical need to act swiftly.
Significance:
Signaled a pragmatic approach to agency enforcement and delayed judicial review.
4. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts:
Concerned EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s ambiguous provisions.
Holding:
Established the famous Chevron two-step test:
If Congress’s intent is clear, courts must follow it.
If ambiguous, courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
Significance:
Marked a turning point, endorsing judicial deference to agency expertise and interpretation of statutes.
5. Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Facts:
Property owners challenged a tax assessment made without a hearing.
Holding:
The Court held that when government action affects specific individuals, due process requires a hearing.
Significance:
Early establishment of due process protections in administrative adjudication.
6. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts:
Welfare recipients were denied benefits without a hearing.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that due process requires an evidentiary hearing before terminating benefits.
Significance:
Expanded due process rights in administrative proceedings involving individual rights.
Modern Developments in Administrative Law
7. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Facts:
EPA declined to regulate greenhouse gases.
Holding:
The Court ruled that EPA had statutory authority and must consider regulating greenhouse gases.
Significance:
Demonstrated the role of agencies in addressing emerging regulatory challenges and reinforced judicial oversight of agency inaction.
8. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts:
The Court reviewed EPA’s regulation of power plant emissions.
Holding:
The Court found EPA acted unreasonably by not considering costs at the initial regulatory stage.
Significance:
Illustrates the Court’s willingness to review agency reasonableness and cost considerations.
Summary Table of Key Cases in the Evolution of U.S. Administrative Law
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICC v. Cincinnati Railway | 1897 | Agency power in interstate commerce | Upheld agency regulatory reach |
| Schechter Poultry | 1935 | Limits on delegation | Nondelegation doctrine enforced |
| Yakus v. U.S. | 1944 | Enforcement and judicial review | Allowed administrative enforcement |
| Londoner v. Denver | 1908 | Due process in assessments | Hearing required when individual rights affected |
| Chevron v. NRDC | 1984 | Judicial deference | Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations |
| Goldberg v. Kelly | 1970 | Due process in administrative hearings | Due process requires hearings before benefit denial |
| Massachusetts v. EPA | 2007 | Agency authority in environmental law | Agency must consider statutory obligations |
| Michigan v. EPA | 2015 | Agency reasonableness | Agencies must consider costs in rulemaking |
Conclusion
The evolution of administrative law in the U.S. is a story of balancing agency expertise and flexibility against constitutional limits and individual rights. Courts initially constrained agency power but gradually accepted its necessity in complex governance, especially after Chevron. Due process protections have been integrated into administrative adjudications, and judicial review remains a critical check on agency action and inaction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments