Separation of powers in U S administrative law
Separation of Powers in U.S. Administrative Law
What is Separation of Powers?
The Separation of Powers is a fundamental principle in the U.S. Constitution that divides government authority into three branches:
Legislative (Congress) – makes laws
Executive (President and administrative agencies) – enforces laws
Judicial (Courts) – interprets laws
This division is meant to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful by creating a system of checks and balances.
How It Applies to Administrative Law
Administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, but they often have powers that resemble those of the legislative (rulemaking) and judicial (adjudication) branches. This creates tension because:
Agencies make rules that have the force of law (legislative function)
Agencies enforce those rules (executive function)
Agencies adjudicate disputes under those rules (judicial function)
This concentration of powers raises constitutional questions about whether agencies violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Key Cases on Separation of Powers and Administrative Law
1. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983)
Facts:
The Immigration and Nationality Act allowed either house of Congress to veto decisions made by the Executive Branch (the Attorney General) regarding deportation suspensions.
Issue:
Does the legislative veto violate the separation of powers?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the legislative veto was unconstitutional because it bypassed the constitutional procedures of bicameralism and presentment (both houses of Congress passing a law and the President signing it).
Significance:
This case is a landmark in enforcing separation of powers. It invalidated legislative actions that tried to exercise executive powers without following constitutional processes.
2. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted a statute concerning air pollution. The question was whether courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation.
Issue:
Should courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court established the Chevron deference, where courts defer to a reasonable agency interpretation if the statute is ambiguous.
Relation to Separation of Powers:
While Chevron confirms the executive’s role in interpreting statutes, it also recognizes that courts have a role in reviewing agencies. This balance helps maintain separation between judicial and executive functions.
3. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts:
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was created by Congress but insulated from Presidential control.
Issue:
Did this insulation violate the separation of powers by limiting the President’s ability to supervise executive officers?
Holding:
Yes. The Court held that the dual-layer of protection from Presidential removal violated separation of powers because it weakened the President's control over the executive branch.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that the President must have control over executive agencies to preserve the unitary executive and separation of powers.
4. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts:
President Roosevelt removed a Federal Trade Commissioner, Humphrey, without cause. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners could only be removed for cause.
Issue:
Could the President remove an FTC commissioner without cause?
Holding:
No. The Court upheld Congress’s power to limit the President’s removal power for certain independent agencies performing quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.
Significance:
This case carved out an exception to the unitary executive theory, allowing some insulation of administrative agencies from direct Presidential control, balancing separation of powers concerns with agency independence.
5. Myers v. United States (1926)
Facts:
President Wilson removed a postmaster without Senate approval.
Issue:
Does the President have the exclusive power to remove executive officers without Senate consent?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled the President has the sole power to remove executive officers he appoints.
Significance:
Strongly supports the unitary executive theory, emphasizing the President’s control over executive branch officers and limiting Congress's role in removal.
6. Bowsher v. Synar (1986)
Facts:
Congress delegated authority to the Comptroller General to make budgetary decisions, but the Comptroller General was removable only by Congress.
Issue:
Did this arrangement violate the separation of powers?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that because the Comptroller General was executing laws and subject to removal only by Congress, Congress improperly retained executive power.
Significance:
Clarified that Congress cannot retain control over executive officers who carry out executive functions, maintaining separation of powers.
Summary of the Doctrine in Administrative Law
Congress may delegate rulemaking and adjudicative authority to agencies, but must do so with an intelligible principle (a clear guideline).
Agencies exercise a mix of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, raising concerns under separation of powers.
The President generally must have control over executive officers, but Congress can limit removal for independent agencies under certain conditions.
Legislative vetoes and congressional attempts to control execution of laws through non-legislative means are unconstitutional.
Courts play a key role in maintaining separation of powers by reviewing agency actions and ensuring agencies do not overstep.
RELATED Blog
0 comments