The Constitutionality Of Delegating Quasi-Legislative Authority

The delegation of quasi-legislative authority is an important and contentious issue in constitutional law. It involves the transfer of rule-making power from a legislature to administrative agencies or other entities, raising questions about the limits of legislative power and the role of the courts in reviewing such delegations. The US Constitution vests legislative power in Congress, but the Supreme Court has recognised that Congress can delegate authority, provided it does not breach constitutional principles such as the nondelegation doctrine, due process, and the appointments clause. The Court applies varying levels of scrutiny depending on the nature of the entity receiving the delegation, and has allowed Congress significant discretion in delegating authority, particularly to governmental agencies. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for government-created entities to act in their self-interest, and the impact of delegations on democratic accountability. The delegation of quasi-legislative authority is thus a complex and evolving area of constitutional law, with ongoing debates about the appropriate limits and judicial review of such delegations.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$241.21 $359

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

The nondelegation doctrine

The Supreme Court has clarified that when Congress does delegate regulatory power to an agency, it must provide an "intelligible principle" on which the agency bases its regulations. This standard is considered lenient and rarely used to strike down legislation. The Court has upheld complex economic regulations and recognized that new officials may have the discretion to change or reverse agency policies.

Despite the nondelegation doctrine, there are instances where Congress has delegated authority to other entities. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency within the executive branch that Congress has empowered to regulate food and drugs, ensuring public safety and preventing false advertising. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been delegated the authority to determine how to collect taxes assessed under the Internal Revenue Code.

Critics of a strict interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine argue that the increasing complexity of society requires Congress to delegate complex regulatory burdens to agencies. They contend that a strict interpretation would hinder efficient governance. However, proponents counter that delegation undermines the separation of powers, public accountability, and constitutional principles.

Separation of powers

The doctrine of separation of powers is a political philosophy that divides a government's powers into three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. Each branch has its own unique functions and powers, and no branch may usurp the powers of another. This system of checks and balances helps prevent the abuse of power.

The doctrine of separation of powers is a key consideration in the delegation of legislative authority. The nondelegation doctrine holds that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. This is to prevent the legislative branch from divesting itself of its power and conferring it on another branch, thus breaching the separation of powers.

However, the nondelegation doctrine is not applied rigidly. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate authority to another entity, provided it first determines whether the entity is a private or governmental entity. The level of scrutiny applied by the Court depends on the nature of the entity. For governmental entities, such as federal agencies, the Court applies a more lenient standard. The Court has also approved the delegation of power when the legislature has laid down a clear declaration of policy and established objective standards or guidelines.

The executive branch, including the President, also has the power to delegate authority. For example, the President can suspend or rescind a law passed by Congress, or preempt state law. However, the President cannot encroach on the functions of the legislature, such as the power to make, alter, or repeal laws.

In conclusion, the delegation of legislative authority must respect the separation of powers doctrine. While Congress cannot delegate its core lawmaking functions, it can delegate authority to other entities, provided it does not breach the constitutional division of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Due process

The delegation of quasi-legislative authority is a contentious issue in the US Constitution, with concerns about democratic accountability and the potential for Congress to "slough off hard policy questions". The Vesting Clause (Article I, Section 1) vests Congress with "all legislative powers herein granted" and the authority to delegate. This has been interpreted as a delegation doctrine, with Congress as the supreme lawmaker. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, and the Vesting Clause text is considered ambiguous.

The nondelegation doctrine holds that the power to make laws is inherently legislative and cannot be delegated except through specific delegation. This doctrine is based on two constitutional principles: separation of powers and due process. The separation of powers prevents the lawmaking branch from transferring its power to another branch, maintaining the division of governmental power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The due process clause is a critical aspect of the nondelegation doctrine, ensuring that delegations of power do not violate individual liberties and constitutional rights. Courts have the power to review the validity of administrative rules and ensure they comply with legislative intent, constitutional principles, and due process. The Supreme Court has invalidated a congressional delegation of lawmaking authority to private institutions on only one occasion in 1935 (A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan).

The delegation of quasi-legislative authority to administrative agencies is justified by the recognition that Congress cannot foresee every detailed situation that may arise. Administrative agencies possess the expertise to craft specific regulations within the limits set by Congress and the Constitution. This delegation of power is considered constitutional as long as it meets certain requirements, such as the Completeness Test, where the law must be complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the administrative agency.

The potential self-interested nature of government-created entities and their coercive power over competitors has raised concerns about violations of the Due Process Clause. The delegation of authority to officers, members of the board of directors, or employees of these entities may also implicate the Constitution's requirements regarding the appointment of federal officials under the Appointments Clause.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$23.73 $74.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

The Appointments Clause

The Court has held that the Appointments Clause applies to officers who wield significant authority. In determining whether an appointee is a principal or inferior officer, the Court has considered factors such as removability by a higher executive branch official and limitations on the officer's duties, jurisdiction, and tenure.

The delegation of authority to officers, members of the board of directors, or employees of government-created entities may implicate the requirements of the Appointments Clause. For example, in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, the Supreme Court affirmed Amtrak's status as a governmental entity and addressed nondelegation and Appointments Clause challenges.

Constitutional limitations

The delegation of quasi-legislative authority is subject to several constitutional limitations. The US Constitution vests legislative power in Congress, which consists of the Senate and House of Representatives. This power includes the authority to delegate, but it is not without limits. The Supreme Court has emphasised that any delegation of authority must adhere to constitutional principles and due process.

The delegation of quasi-legislative authority to administrative agencies is a critical function that enables the detailed implementation of laws. However, it must be done within the bounds of the Constitution and any enabling legislation. The non-delegation doctrine holds that the power to make laws cannot be delegated to an administrative agency without specific authorisation. This ensures that agencies remain within the scope of their granted authority.

When reviewing the constitutionality of delegated quasi-legislative authority, the Supreme Court examines the entire statute to determine if there is an intelligible standard to guide administrators. This standard must provide sufficient guidance for administrators to act within the legislative will. The Court has upheld delegations of authority when the statute's policies are not open-ended, providing a clear framework for implementation.

Additionally, the delegation of quasi-legislative authority must not violate constitutional provisions such as the due process clause, equal protection clause, or non-delegation of legislative power. Courts have the power to review and invalidate administrative rules that contravene constitutional rights or attempt to modify the laws they are meant to implement. For example, in Central Bank of the Philippines v. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that rules and regulations could not supersede the laws they are meant to enforce.

Furthermore, the delegation of quasi-legislative authority to officers or directors of government-created entities may implicate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This clause applies to the appointment of federal officials who wield significant authority under US law. The potential self-interested nature of government-created entities and their coercive power over competitors may also raise concerns related to due process and non-delegation principles.

Frequently asked questions