Partisan influence in administrative lawmaking
Partisan Influence in Administrative Lawmaking
What is Partisan Influence?
Partisan influence refers to the impact that political parties, elected officials, or politically appointed agency leaders have on the rulemaking, policy-setting, and enforcement decisions of administrative agencies. Because agencies execute laws passed by legislatures and often create detailed regulations (a process called rulemaking), their independence from partisan politics is a core concern in administrative law.
Why is Partisan Influence Significant?
Independence and Neutrality: Agencies are ideally neutral experts implementing laws fairly.
Democratic Accountability: Agencies are controlled or influenced by elected officials, ensuring policies reflect democratic choices.
Risk of Capture or Bias: Partisan influence can lead to regulatory capture or biased enforcement benefiting political allies.
Legal Challenges: Partisan bias can undermine the legitimacy of agency actions and provoke judicial scrutiny.
How Partisan Influence Manifests in Administrative Lawmaking
Appointments and Political Control: Presidents or governors appoint agency heads aligned with their political views.
Policy Priorities: Agencies shift priorities with changes in administration.
Rulemaking: Partisan agendas influence substantive rules.
Enforcement: Selective enforcement can reflect political considerations.
Legislative Oversight and Funding: Legislatures may use funding or oversight to steer agencies politically.
Case Law on Partisan Influence in Administrative Lawmaking
1. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts: President Roosevelt tried to remove a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner for political reasons.
Holding: The Court ruled that Congress can create independent agencies with protection against removal except for cause.
Significance: Established that agencies can be insulated from partisan presidential influence to preserve independence.
Impact: Creates a constitutional balance limiting partisan interference in agency leadership.
2. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Facts: The CFPB, led by a single director removable only for cause, was challenged on separation of powers grounds.
Holding: The Court held that the removal protection was unconstitutional, allowing the President to remove the director at will.
Significance: Emphasizes presidential control and political accountability over independent agencies, allowing more partisan influence.
Impact: Rebalances agency independence vs. partisan control.
3. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001)
Facts: EPA set air quality standards challenged as exceeding agency discretion.
Holding: The Court ruled that agencies must follow legislative directives and cannot base decisions on political or policy considerations beyond statutory bounds.
Significance: Limits partisan discretion in agency rulemaking by enforcing statutory limits.
Impact: Constrains agencies from making partisan-driven rules not grounded in law.
4. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983)
Facts: The NHTSA rescinded a safety standard abruptly after a change in administration.
Holding: The Court held that agency actions must not be arbitrary or capricious and must provide reasoned explanations, even when policies change.
Significance: Agencies can reflect partisan shifts but must justify changes logically.
Impact: Provides a procedural check against partisan whimsy.
5. In re Sealed Case No. 98-3078 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
Facts: Challenges to the independence and political influence over the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Holding: The court recognized the risk of partisan deadlock and influence in the FEC due to its bipartisan structure.
Significance: Highlights how institutional design can mitigate or exacerbate partisan influence.
Impact: Shows how agency structure affects partisan control in administrative lawmaking.
6. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: EPA's interpretation of environmental regulations was challenged.
Holding: Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Significance: Grants agencies latitude in lawmaking, potentially increasing scope for partisan influence depending on appointees.
Impact: Expands agency power subject to political control.
Summary Table: Partisan Influence and Key Case Law
| Case | Issue | Holding/Principle | Partisan Influence Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935) | Removal protections for agency heads | Agencies can be protected from partisan removal except for cause | Limits direct partisan control to preserve independence |
| Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) | Removal protections vs. presidential control | Removal protection unconstitutional, increasing political control | Enhances partisan presidential influence |
| Whitman v. ATA (2001) | Agency discretion in rulemaking | Agencies must follow statutes, no undue political or policy bias | Limits partisan rulemaking beyond statutory authority |
| Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm (1983) | Arbitrary changes in policy | Changes must be reasoned and not arbitrary | Requires agencies to justify partisan-driven changes |
| In re Sealed Case No. 98-3078 (1999) | Bipartisan agency deadlock | Bipartisan structure can limit partisan dominance | Shows institutional design’s effect on partisan control |
| Chevron v. NRDC (1984) | Judicial deference to agency | Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations | Increases agency discretion, potential partisan leverage |
Conclusion
Partisan influence in administrative lawmaking is a complex dynamic shaped by constitutional principles, statutory frameworks, agency design, and judicial oversight. Courts strive to balance agency independence from partisan politics with democratic accountability to elected officials. The evolving case law reflects ongoing tensions about how much partisan control is appropriate in the administrative state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments