Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA case brief
v First D.C. Circuit Opinion:
v EPA’s
construction of Clean Water Act provisions (authorizing EPA to
promulgate regulations establishing standards for air pollutants)
renders them an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power
v Although EPA used reasonable factors, it articulated no intelligible principle to guide application of those factors (reading “requisite” just to mean it leads to less pollution)
v Rationales for nondelegation doctrine:
o Keep standards from being arbitrary
o Increase chance of meaningful judicial review being feasible
o *Make sure important policy choices are made by Congress
v Risk/benefit analysis would be intelligible principle
v Dissent
– there was intelligible principle in setting standards requisite to
public health and if court finds that agency didn’t follow those
standards, that’s for a&c review, not a delegation issue
v Second D.C. Circuit Opinion
v Not
for court to choose among permissible interpretations of an ambiguous
principle (Chevron) – can’t decide if it’s an intelligible principle
until it’s applied
v Supreme Court Opinion
v Not a violation of nondelegation doctrine
v A limiting agency construction cannot cure nondelegation problem – that’s silly
v However,
the scope of discretion allowed here (“requisite for public health”) is
well within outer limits of nondelegation precedents [Court has
sustained much worse than this]
v Thomas
concurrence: no delegation of legislative power; intelligible principle
shouldn’t always cure when there is such a delegation (Formalist
Approach)
v Stevens
concurrence: Vesting clause doesn’t prevent delegation of legislative
power; intelligible principle is enough of a check (Functionalist
Approach)
o Constitution-based objections to this view
§ Getting laws made is supposed to require bicameralism and presentment
§ Electoral accountability of Congress eroded with delegation to agency (or is it?)
No comments:
Post a Comment