Publication of delegated legislation
🔷 Publication of Delegated Legislation
🔹 What Is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation refers to rules, regulations, orders, or directives made by administrative agencies under authority delegated by Congress. These regulations have the force of law, but the agency must follow certain procedural and publication requirements.
Delegated legislation is usually published in:
Federal Register (for proposed and final rules)
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (for codified regulations)
🔹 Why Is Publication Important?
The key principles are:
Public Notice – So that citizens know the law and can comply with it.
Due Process – Agencies must give the public an opportunity to participate (via comments).
Legitimacy – Publication ensures transparency and accountability.
Enforceability – Unpublished rules may be invalid or unenforceable.
Legal Basis:
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 & § 553
Requires notice-and-comment rulemaking
Mandates publication in the Federal Register
🔹 Important Cases on Publication of Delegated Legislation
Here are more than five cases that illustrate how courts have dealt with publication, notice, and enforceability of agency rules:
1. Morton v. Ruiz (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
A Native American (Ruiz) was denied welfare benefits based on internal agency guidelines that had never been published or issued through formal rulemaking.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that unpublished internal rules could not be enforced against individuals.
Agencies must publish rules affecting the public.
Significance:
Landmark ruling: Agencies cannot apply secret rules to deny rights or benefits.
Enforced the requirement of transparency in delegated legislation.
2. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Chrysler challenged the Department of Labor's attempt to release confidential information under agency regulations.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that only properly published rules, enacted under statutory authority, can have binding legal effect.
Informal or internal rules lacking proper publication do not create enforceable duties.
Significance:
Clarified that publication and procedural compliance are preconditions for enforceability of agency regulations.
Reinforced APA standards for rulemaking.
3. United States v. Picciotto (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Facts:
Protester was arrested for violating National Park Service regulations, but the specific rule wasn't published in the Federal Register.
Judgment:
The court held that because the rule was not properly published, it could not be enforced criminally.
Significance:
Demonstrates that publication is essential even for rules governing conduct in public spaces.
Highlights that criminal enforcement requires prior legal notice.
4. Hoctor v. USDA (7th Cir. 1996)
Facts:
A zoo owner was cited for not building a fence of a specific height as required by a USDA policy, not published or subjected to rulemaking.
Judgment:
The court held that the requirement constituted a legislative rule (not interpretive) and must go through notice-and-comment and publication.
Significance:
Shows that even technical or minor rules, if binding, must be published.
Distinguished between interpretive rules (which don’t always require formal process) and legislative rules (which do).
5. General Electric Co. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Facts:
GE challenged EPA guidance that had a binding effect but was never published or subjected to public comment.
Judgment:
Court ruled the EPA guidance was effectively a legislative rule and thus invalid due to lack of publication and notice.
Significance:
Reinforces that binding policy statements require full procedural compliance, including publication.
Ensures that agencies do not circumvent APA requirements by labeling rules as "guidance."
6. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Facts:
EPA issued a document called "guidance" that effectively imposed mandatory requirements.
Judgment:
The court found that the so-called guidance was a de facto rule, and since it was not published nor subject to notice-and-comment, it was unlawful.
Significance:
Courts will look beyond the label (e.g., "guidance") to assess whether a rule has legal effect and thus requires publication.
7. American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety and Health Administration (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Facts:
Concerned whether an agency directive needed to be published and go through notice-and-comment.
Judgment:
Established a four-factor test to determine whether a rule is legislative (requiring publication) or interpretive (which may not).
Significance:
Provided judicial standards for when agency rules must be published, emphasizing practical legal impact.
🔹 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Morton v. Ruiz | Unpublished benefits rule | Invalid – must be published |
| Chrysler v. Brown | Enforcement of unpublished rule | Not binding – must be validly published |
| U.S. v. Picciotto | Criminal enforcement of unpublished rule | Voided – lack of publication |
| Hoctor v. USDA | Fence rule without publication | Invalid – legislative rule needs publication |
| GE v. EPA | Binding guidance not published | Invalid – must follow APA |
| Appalachian Power | Agency “guidance” had legal force | Unlawful without publication |
| Am. Mining Congress | Interpretive vs legislative rule | Legislative rules need publication |
🔹 Key Legal Principles
Only properly published rules can have binding legal effect.
Legislative rules, which affect public rights and obligations, must follow APA rulemaking procedures, including publication.
Unpublished or informal rules cannot be used to enforce penalties or deny benefits.
Courts assess substance over form—even so-called “guidance” may be treated as law if it has binding effect.
Failure to publish delegated legislation may result in unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause (lack of fair notice).
🔹 Conclusion
The publication of delegated legislation is a constitutional and procedural necessity that ensures:
Transparency in government
Legal notice to the public
Judicial reviewability of administrative actions
Compliance with the APA
Through a series of landmark decisions, courts have made it clear that agencies must publish legislative rules and cannot enforce secret or informal policies that affect the public. The Supremacy of Law and due process rights are protected by this strict requirement of legal visibility and participation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments