Separation of powers and agencies
Separation of Powers and Administrative Agencies: Overview
The doctrine of Separation of Powers divides government functions into three branches:
Legislative (makes laws),
Executive (implements laws),
Judicial (interprets laws).
Administrative agencies often blur these lines by exercising quasi-legislative (rulemaking), quasi-executive (enforcement), and quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) functions. Courts have grappled with how agencies fit within this framework and to what extent their actions respect constitutional limits.
Key Principles
Agencies are typically part of the executive branch but may be empowered to make rules and adjudicate disputes.
Judicial review ensures agencies do not exceed their authority.
The non-delegation doctrine limits Congress’s ability to delegate legislative power.
Agencies must respect due process when adjudicating.
Courts scrutinize agency structures for separation of powers concerns, especially regarding independent agencies.
Important Case Laws
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) [USA]
Facts:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulation interpreting a statute in a way challenged by environmental groups.
Held:
The U.S. Supreme Court established the Chevron deference doctrine: courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Explanation:
Recognizes agencies’ quasi-legislative role in rulemaking.
Balances separation of powers by giving agencies leeway within statutory boundaries.
Affirms that Congress can delegate authority but agencies must act within that scope.
2. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) [USA]
Facts:
The Immigration and Nationality Act allowed one-house legislative veto over certain executive actions.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled the legislative veto unconstitutional as it violated separation of powers.
Explanation:
Congress cannot retain control over executive decisions through legislative veto.
Reinforces that legislative and executive powers must remain distinct.
Limits congressional oversight on administrative agencies’ executive actions.
3. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) [USA]
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutionality of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency with legislative-like powers.
Held:
Court upheld the Commission, stating delegation to agencies is constitutional if Congress provides intelligible principles.
Explanation:
Confirms agencies can exercise quasi-legislative functions within clear limits.
Emphasizes flexibility in separation of powers doctrine to accommodate modern governance.
4. Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908) [USA]
Facts:
The city assessed property taxes without a hearing.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that when an agency adjudicates on specific facts, the affected parties have a right to a hearing.
Explanation:
Defines limits on agencies’ quasi-judicial powers.
Agencies must provide due process when making decisions affecting individual rights.
Reinforces the judicial function of protecting rights against arbitrary executive action.
5. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) [USA]
Facts:
The President tried to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an independent agency.
Held:
The Court held that independent agencies’ members could not be removed without cause.
Explanation:
Supports independent agencies with some insulation from executive control.
Balances separation of powers by limiting executive power over certain agencies.
6. R (Miller) v. Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 (United Kingdom)
Facts:
The UK Prime Minister advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament during Brexit debates.
Held:
The UK Supreme Court held that this prorogation was unlawful as it frustrated Parliament’s constitutional role.
Explanation:
Although a UK case, it highlights the separation of powers between the executive and legislature.
Courts have a role in checking executive overreach affecting Parliament.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC | USA | Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations |
| INS v. Chadha | USA | Legislative veto violates separation of powers |
| Mistretta v. U.S. | USA | Delegation constitutional with intelligible principle |
| Londoner v. Denver | USA | Due process required in quasi-judicial agency actions |
| Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. | USA | Independent agencies insulated from executive removal |
| R (Miller) v. Prime Minister | UK | Executive actions unlawful if they frustrate legislature |
Conclusion
Administrative agencies operate at the intersection of the three branches of government, exercising legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Courts maintain the balance through doctrines like non-delegation, judicial review, and due process. Key cases have defined limits on agency powers, preserved constitutional checks, and adapted separation of powers to modern administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments