Agencies as “fourth branch” of government debate
🔹 1. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
✅ Background:
President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — an independent agency — without cause. The law governing the FTC allowed removal only for specific reasons.
⚖️ Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could limit the President’s power to remove commissioners of independent regulatory agencies.
💡 Significance:
This case solidified the independence of certain administrative agencies from direct executive control.
Agencies like the FTC could exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers without being fully under the executive branch.
Supports the "fourth branch" argument by affirming agencies’ unique status, not entirely controlled by any one branch.
🔹 2. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
✅ Background:
The EPA interpreted an ambiguous term in the Clean Air Act. The question was whether courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court established the Chevron Deference doctrine:
If Congress’s intent is clear, follow it.
If the statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
💡 Significance:
Gave agencies broad power to interpret law, a traditionally judicial function.
Critics argue Chevron allows agencies to effectively make and interpret law, supporting the "fourth branch" critique.
Defenders say it respects expertise and delegation in complex regulatory areas.
🔹 3. INS v. Chadha (1983)
✅ Background:
Congress tried to overturn an immigration judge’s decision (by the Attorney General) using a “legislative veto” (a one-house resolution).
⚖️ Holding:
The Supreme Court held the legislative veto unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers and the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution.
💡 Significance:
Reinforced formal separation between legislative and executive powers.
However, it increased the power of executive agencies by eliminating Congress’s informal check (the legislative veto).
Raised concerns about agencies acting without adequate oversight, fueling "fourth branch" fears.
🔹 4. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
✅ Background:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act created a board (PCAOB) to regulate accounting. Board members were appointed and removable only by SEC members — who themselves were protected from removal except for cause.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court ruled that this double-layer of removal protection violated the separation of powers.
💡 Significance:
Reined in agency independence where it undermined executive control.
Suggested that too much insulation from presidential oversight could make agencies functionally a "fourth branch".
Important balance: allows independence, but not total immunity from accountability.
🔹 5. City of Arlington v. FCC (2013)
✅ Background:
The FCC claimed the power to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction under Chevron deference.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court held that Chevron deference applies even when an agency interprets the scope of its own jurisdiction.
💡 Significance:
Critics argue this gives agencies power to decide how much power they have, which is usually a judicial role.
Seen as a step toward self-governing agencies, supporting the "fourth branch" concern.
Dissenting justices warned of agencies becoming “a sort of junior varsity Congress and judiciary.”
🔹 6. West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
✅ Background:
The EPA issued sweeping regulations on power plants under the Clean Air Act, though the statute did not clearly authorize such action.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court invoked the “Major Questions Doctrine,” ruling that agencies need clear congressional authorization to decide issues of major political or economic significance.
💡 Significance:
A limit on agency power — agencies cannot assume sweeping authority without explicit legislation.
Reflects concern over administrative overreach — trying to legislate without Congress.
Seen as a pushback against the “fourth branch” expansion.
🧠 Summary of the "Fourth Branch" Debate
| Perspective | Key Argument | Supporting Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Critics of Agencies as 'Fourth Branch' | Agencies exercise too much unchecked power, blending legislative, executive, and judicial functions. | INS v. Chadha, City of Arlington, Chevron, Free Enterprise Fund |
| Defenders of Agencies | Agencies are necessary for modern governance, operate under delegated authority, and are subject to judicial review. | Chevron, Humphrey’s Executor, Mead Corp. |
| Recent Court Trend | Increasingly skeptical of agency overreach, demanding clear congressional authorization for major decisions. | West Virginia v. EPA, Free Enterprise Fund |
🔚 Conclusion
Administrative agencies in the U.S. do not formally constitute a "fourth branch" of government — they are created by Congress and exist within the executive branch. However, their broad power, functional independence, and ability to make binding rules and adjudications make them resemble a separate power structure.
Through judicial decisions, courts have tried to balance the need for efficient regulation with the constitutional requirements of separation of powers and checks and balances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments