The “Intelligible Principle” test
What is the Intelligible Principle Test?
The Intelligible Principle test comes from the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to another branch or agency without providing an “intelligible principle” to guide the exercise of the delegated authority.
Why is it important?
The Constitution vests “legislative power” in Congress (Article I, Section 1). However, Congress often delegates authority to agencies to fill in the details of laws. To prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility, the Supreme Court requires Congress to provide clear guidance—a principle or standard—that limits the agency’s discretion.
The standard:
Congress must provide an intelligible principle to guide the agency’s discretion. This principle can be broad but must give the agency a clear policy or standard.
Landmark Cases on the Intelligible Principle Test
1. J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Citation: 276 U.S. 394
Facts: Congress delegated to the President the power to adjust tariffs within certain limits.
Issue: Whether this delegation violated the nondelegation doctrine.
Holding: The delegation was constitutional because Congress provided an “intelligible principle” to guide the President’s action.
Significance: This case is the origin of the intelligible principle test. The Court held that Congress can delegate legislative power if it provides clear guidance or standards.
2. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
Citation: 293 U.S. 388
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed the President to prohibit the transportation of petroleum in excess of state quotas.
Issue: Whether the delegation was too broad without an intelligible principle.
Holding: The Court struck down the delegation as unconstitutional, finding Congress failed to provide adequate guidance or standards.
Significance: This is one of the few cases where the Court invalidated a delegation, emphasizing the need for concrete standards.
3. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Citation: 295 U.S. 495
Facts: The National Industrial Recovery Act allowed the President to approve “codes of fair competition” for industries.
Issue: Whether the delegation was unconstitutional for lack of an intelligible principle.
Holding: The delegation was struck down as it gave virtually unchecked power to the President without clear standards.
Significance: Reinforced the limits of delegation when there is no intelligible principle.
4. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)
Citation: 531 U.S. 457
Facts: The Clean Air Act required the EPA to set air quality standards “requisite to protect the public health.”
Issue: Whether Congress provided an intelligible principle guiding EPA's discretion.
Holding: The delegation was upheld because the statute provided an intelligible principle guiding EPA.
Significance: This case reaffirmed the intelligible principle test and made clear that even broad standards like “public health” can be sufficient.
5. Mistretta v. United States (1989)
Citation: 488 U.S. 361
Facts: Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission with authority to establish sentencing guidelines.
Issue: Whether the delegation to the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine.
Holding: The delegation was upheld; Congress provided an intelligible principle to guide the Commission.
Significance: Confirmed Congress can delegate broad authority if guided by clear legislative goals and standards.
6. Gundy v. United States (2019)
Citation: 588 U.S. ___ (2019)
Facts: Congress delegated authority to the Attorney General to decide the applicability of certain sex offender registration requirements.
Issue: Whether the delegation lacked an intelligible principle.
Holding: The majority upheld the delegation, finding Congress’s directive was sufficiently clear.
Significance: The case showed modern justices’ differing views on the doctrine but reaffirmed the general leniency courts have towards delegation.
Summary
The Intelligible Principle test requires Congress to set clear boundaries or standards for any delegated authority.
Courts have generally allowed broad delegations as long as there is some guiding principle.
The test has been applied strictly only in a handful of cases where delegation was struck down (e.g., Panama Refining, Schechter).
Recent cases (Whitman, Mistretta, Gundy) show the Court is generally deferential to Congress in matters of delegation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments