Separation of powers and Administrative Law
⚖️ I. WHAT IS SEPARATION OF POWERS?
Separation of powers is a constitutional principle dividing the functions of government into three distinct branches:
Legislative (Congress) – Makes laws
Executive (President and administrative agencies) – Enforces laws
Judicial (Courts) – Interprets laws
In administrative law, the principle is tested frequently because administrative agencies often combine legislative, executive, and judicial powers. For example, an agency might:
Issue regulations (legislative),
Investigate and enforce violations (executive), and
Conduct hearings and issue decisions (judicial).
This consolidation raises constitutional concerns about how far agencies can go without violating separation of powers.
🧾 II. KEY ISSUES WHERE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CLASH
Delegation of Legislative Power – Can Congress delegate lawmaking power to agencies?
Executive Control Over Agencies – Can the President remove agency officials at will?
Judicial Review – Do courts have the final say on agency decisions?
Administrative Adjudication – Can agencies act like courts?
Appointments and Removal – Who controls who gets hired/fired in agencies?
📚 III. CASE LAW ANALYSIS (MORE THAN FIVE DETAILED CASES)
✅ 1. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
Topic: Delegation of legislative power
Facts:
Congress gave the President broad authority to approve “codes of fair competition” under the National Industrial Recovery Act. One such code regulated poultry sales.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President without clear guidelines.
Significance:
Landmark case limiting overbroad delegation.
Established that Congress cannot give away its core lawmaking powers without “intelligible principles.”
Still cited when courts evaluate agency rulemaking authority.
✅ 2. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
Topic: Presidential removal power
Facts:
President Roosevelt removed a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is an independent agency, before the end of his term.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the President could not remove an FTC commissioner without cause, due to statutory protection.
Significance:
Distinguished independent agencies from purely executive ones.
Recognized Congress can limit presidential control over certain agency officials.
Set up dual-layered insulation for independent regulatory agencies.
✅ 3. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Topic: Legislative veto and separation of powers
Facts:
Congress used a one-house “legislative veto” to overturn a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to allow a noncitizen to stay in the U.S.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled the legislative veto was unconstitutional because it violated bicameralism and presentment (i.e., laws must pass both chambers and be signed by the President).
Significance:
Undermined Congress’s ability to overrule agency decisions informally.
Strengthened executive authority and administrative independence.
Reaffirmed that Congress must act legislatively, not administratively, to control agencies.
✅ 4. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
Topic: Separation of powers and executive control
Facts:
The Ethics in Government Act allowed the appointment of an independent counsel who could investigate high-ranking officials and was only removable for cause.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that limiting presidential removal power did not unduly interfere with executive functions.
Significance:
Approved limited restrictions on presidential removal power.
Reinforced balance between independence and accountability.
Later criticized in Justice Scalia’s famous dissent predicting an “unstable equilibrium” in separation of powers.
✅ 5. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), 561 U.S. 477 (2010)
Topic: Dual-layer removal protections
Facts:
The PCAOB’s members could only be removed by SEC commissioners, who themselves could only be removed by the President for cause.
Held:
The Court found this structure violated separation of powers because the President could not exert sufficient control over PCAOB.
Significance:
Limited “double insulation” from presidential control.
Struck a balance: independent agencies can exist, but cannot be too insulated.
Agencies must remain ultimately accountable to the executive.
✅ 6. Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Topic: Unitary executive and agency independence
Facts:
Seila Law challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had a single director protected from removal except for cause.
Held:
The Court ruled that a single-headed independent agency with for-cause removal protection violated the separation of powers.
Significance:
Differentiated between multi-member commissions (like FTC) and single-director agencies.
Held that concentration of executive power in an unaccountable official violates Article II.
Major shift towards a more unitary executive view of presidential control.
✅ 7. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)
Topic: Congressional control over execution of laws
Facts:
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act gave the Comptroller General authority to make budget cuts. The Comptroller was removable only by Congress.
Held:
The Court ruled this structure unconstitutional because Congress cannot retain control over officers who execute the law.
Significance:
Reinforced executive control over administration.
Prevented Congress from exercising executive power indirectly.
Agencies executing the law must be accountable to the executive, not the legislature.
📊 IV. SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Key Issue | Holding | Impact on Admin Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schechter Poultry (1935) | Excessive delegation | Unconstitutional | Limited Congress’s delegation power |
| Humphrey’s Executor (1935) | Removal protection | Upheld independence | Validated independent agencies |
| INS v. Chadha (1983) | Legislative veto | Unconstitutional | Reaffirmed bicameralism/presentment |
| Morrison v. Olson (1988) | Independent counsel | Constitutional | Allowed limited removal restrictions |
| Free Enterprise Fund (2010) | Double removal protection | Unconstitutional | President must maintain oversight |
| Seila Law (2020) | Single-director independence | Unconstitutional | Rejected unaccountable executive officials |
| Bowsher v. Synar (1986) | Congressional control | Unconstitutional | Reinforced executive control of execution |
🧠 V. CONCLUSION: BALANCING AGENCIES AND THE CONSTITUTION
The growth of the administrative state means agencies constantly test the boundaries of separation of powers. The courts have responded by:
Permitting agency independence, especially in rulemaking and adjudication, when designed carefully.
Policing presidential control, especially over appointments and removals.
Preventing Congress from encroaching on the execution of laws.
While administrative agencies continue to wield quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, the courts enforce structural limits to ensure constitutional accountability remains intact.
RELATED Blog
0 comments