Nondelegation challenges in modern cases
Nondelegation Doctrine: Overview
The nondelegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities (like administrative agencies) without providing an intelligible principle to guide their exercise of discretion. The doctrine protects the separation of powers by ensuring that the legislature sets policy and agencies execute it.
Modern Nondelegation Challenges: Detailed Cases
1. Gundy v. United States (2019)
Facts: Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the Attorney General was given authority to determine the applicability of registration requirements to offenders convicted before the law was enacted.
Issue: Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Attorney General without an intelligible principle?
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the delegation by a 5-3 vote, ruling that Congress’s instruction to the Attorney General to apply the law "to the maximum extent feasible" provided enough guidance.
Significance: Gundy represents the modern Court’s continued willingness to uphold broad delegations, applying a lenient standard for intelligible principles and marking a departure from any revival of strict nondelegation enforcement.
2. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Facts: The FDA claimed authority to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Issue: Did Congress delegate authority to FDA to regulate tobacco, and was the delegation permissible?
Holding: The Court ruled that Congress had not clearly delegated such authority, and the FDA could not regulate tobacco as a drug.
Significance: While not a pure nondelegation case, the decision emphasized limits on agency authority where Congress’s delegation is unclear or absent, indirectly touching on nondelegation principles.
3. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001)
Facts: The Clean Air Act required EPA to set air quality standards but provided limited guidance on how to set them.
Issue: Was the delegation to EPA unconstitutional because it lacked an intelligible principle?
Holding: The Court unanimously upheld the delegation, stating that setting air quality standards based on public health goals was a sufficient guiding principle.
Significance: This case reaffirmed the broad scope of permissible delegations, emphasizing that agencies must be given flexible discretion to fulfill complex regulatory tasks.
4. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed the President to approve "codes of fair competition."
Issue: Did Congress improperly delegate legislative power to the executive branch?
Holding: The Court invalidated the delegation, ruling that the law gave the President overly broad power without sufficient guidance.
Significance: Although an older case, it remains a landmark decision illustrating strict nondelegation limits that modern courts have rarely applied since.
5. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed the President to prohibit the shipment of petroleum in excess of state quotas.
Issue: Was the delegation overly broad and unconstitutional?
Holding: The Court struck down the provision, finding the delegation lacked an intelligible principle.
Significance: Like Schechter, it’s a classic example of the Court enforcing strict nondelegation, setting the baseline for modern doctrine.
6. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990)
Facts: The Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations under the Endangered Species Act with broad discretion.
Issue: Was the delegation constitutional given the broad discretion?
Holding: The Court did not find the delegation unconstitutional, noting that Congress provided sufficient standards.
Significance: Reflects the modern trend of judicial acceptance of broad delegations in environmental regulation, with minimal nondelegation challenges succeeding.
7. West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
Facts: The EPA attempted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act’s "best system of emission reduction" language.
Issue: Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate vast regulatory power to the EPA without clear authorization?
Holding: The Court ruled that EPA exceeded its authority and emphasized the “major questions doctrine”, requiring clear congressional authorization for significant policy decisions.
Significance: While not strictly a nondelegation ruling, the case reflects renewed judicial skepticism about broad agency powers and the limits of delegation, signaling possible future challenges.
Summary and Trends
The nondelegation doctrine requires Congress to provide an intelligible principle guiding agency action.
Since the 1930s, the Court has largely been lenient in upholding broad delegations, emphasizing practicality in complex governance.
Cases like Gundy reaffirm broad agency discretion, while West Virginia v. EPA signals a potential tightening through the major questions doctrine, which demands clear congressional mandates for major policy actions.
Historic cases like Schechter and Panama Refining serve as high-water marks for nondelegation enforcement but have rarely been replicated in recent decades.
RELATED Blog
0 comments