Role of Congress in delegating powers
📖 Role of Congress in Delegating Powers
The U.S. Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress (Article I, §1). However, in practice Congress cannot handle every matter itself, especially in technical, administrative, or specialized areas. To ensure effective governance, Congress delegates certain powers to administrative agencies and the Executive.
But there are limits:
Congress cannot delegate its core legislative power (the power to make law itself).
It may delegate rule-making or adjudicatory powers if it lays down an “intelligible principle” to guide the delegate.
This doctrine has been shaped by many U.S. Supreme Court cases.
📚 Key Case Laws on Congressional Delegation of Powers
1. J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Background: Congress authorized the President to adjust tariff rates if he found that duties were unequal.
Issue: Was this delegation of legislative power unconstitutional?
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation.
Principle: The famous “intelligible principle test” was established:
Congress can delegate power if it lays down clear standards or principles to guide the agency or executive.
Impact: This became the cornerstone of delegation doctrine, allowing wide delegations so long as there is guidance.
2. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) – “Hot Oil Case”
Background: The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) gave the President authority to prohibit transportation of petroleum produced in violation of state quotas.
Issue: Did Congress provide sufficient standards to guide the President?
Holding: The delegation was struck down.
Reasoning: The Court said Congress gave the President “unfettered discretion” without clear policy guidance.
Significance: This is one of the rare cases where a delegation was invalidated for lacking an intelligible principle.
3. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Background: Under the NIRA, the President approved “codes of fair competition” for industries, which had binding legal effect.
Issue: Did this amount to excessive delegation of legislative power?
Holding: Yes. The Court unanimously struck it down.
Reasoning: Congress left virtually everything—policy, rules, enforcement—to the President and private industry groups.
Importance: Along with Panama Refining, this was the high point of the Court striking down delegations during the New Deal era.
4. Yakus v. United States (1944)
Background: During World War II, Congress authorized the Price Administrator to fix commodity prices to control inflation.
Issue: Did this delegation violate the separation of powers?
Holding: The Court upheld the law.
Reasoning: Congress provided an intelligible principle: prices must be “fair and equitable” and necessary to prevent inflation.
Significance: This showed judicial deference in times of national emergency, and it reaffirmed broad delegation powers.
5. Mistretta v. United States (1989)
Background: Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission, giving it authority to draft binding sentencing guidelines for federal courts.
Issue: Was this an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation.
Reasoning: Congress provided clear goals (reduce sentencing disparity, ensure fairness) and guided the Commission with specific factors to consider.
Key Quote: “So long as Congress lays down an intelligible principle … delegation is permissible.”
Importance: Confirmed the vitality of the intelligible principle test in modern governance.
6. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001)
Background: Congress authorized the EPA to set air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Industry groups argued that Congress gave the EPA unlimited discretion.
Issue: Did Congress provide an intelligible principle?
Holding: The Court upheld the delegation.
Reasoning: The statute required standards “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” This was a sufficiently clear guideline.
Significance: Justice Scalia emphasized that Congress cannot delegate core legislative power, but setting standards with guidance is valid.
7. Gundy v. United States (2019)
Background: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) gave the Attorney General discretion to decide how the law applies to offenders convicted before its enactment.
Issue: Was this excessive delegation?
Holding (plurality): The delegation was upheld.
Reasoning: Congress provided guidance: the Attorney General had to ensure registration applied “as soon as feasible.”
Notable: A dissent (Justice Gorsuch) argued for reviving stricter limits on delegation, raising questions about the future of the doctrine.
🔑 Summary of Principles
Intelligible Principle Rule (Hampton, 1928): Congress must provide a guiding standard.
Rare Invalidations (Panama Refining, Schechter, 1935): Delegations struck down for no guidance.
Broad Acceptance (Yakus, Mistretta, Whitman): Courts generally uphold delegations if even minimal standards exist.
Modern Debate (Gundy, 2019): Some Justices push to revisit and tighten delegation limits.
✅ In short: Congress delegates powers to agencies to handle complex or technical tasks, but must provide guiding standards. Courts mostly uphold delegations, striking them down only in extreme cases of standardless discretion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments