Nondelegation doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers herein granted" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, delegation of some authority is exercised as an implied power of Congress, and has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency in the Executive branch created by Congress with the power to regulate food and drugs in the United States. Congress has given the FDA a broad mandate to ensure the safety of the public and prevent false advertising, but it is up to the agency to assess risks and announce prohibitions on harmful additives, and to determine the process by which actions will be brought based on the same. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service has been given the responsibility of collecting taxes that are assessed under the Internal Revenue Code. Although Congress has determined the amount of the tax to be assessed, it has delegated to the IRS the authority to determine how such taxes are to be collected. Administrative agencies like these are sometimes referred to as the Fourth Branch of government.
[edit] Case history
One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of nondelegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
During the 1930s, Congress provided the executive branch with wide powers to combat the Great Depression. The Supreme Court case of Panama Refining v. Ryan involved the National Industrial Recovery Act, which included a provision prohibiting interstate shipment of petroleum in excess of certain quotas. The President was given the power to ensure that the provision was followed. In the Panama Refining case, however, the Court struck down the provision on the ground that Congress had set "no criterion to govern the President's course."
Other provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act were also challenged. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court considered a provision which permitted the President to approve trade codes, drafted by the businesses themselves, so as to ensure "fair competition." The Supreme Court found that, since the law sets no explicit guidelines, businesses "may roam at will and the President may approve or disapprove their proposal as he may see fit." Thus, they struck down the relevant provisions of the Recovery Act.
In the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States, the Court stated that:
- Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority."
Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine. Exemplifying the Court's legal reasoning on this matter, it ruled in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which authorized the President to selectively void portions of appropriation bills, was a violation of the Presentment Clause, which sets forth the formalities governing the passage of legislation. Although the Court noted that the attorneys prosecuting the case had extensively discussed the nondelegation doctrine, the Court declined to consider that question. However, Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, wrote that he would have found the statute to violate the exclusive responsibility for laws to be made by Congress.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- “The Role of Congress in Monitoring Administrative Rulemaking” − Testimony of Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute, before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, September 12, 1996. [1]
- “The Delegation Doctrine”, Madelon Lief, Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, January 2004, Vol. IV, No. 1. [2]
- “The Recent Controversy Over the Non Delegation Doctrine”, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, 2001. [3]
