Growth of Administrative Law in the USA
Growth of Administrative Law in the USA
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative Law governs the activities of government agencies — how they create rules, enforce laws, adjudicate disputes, and how courts review these actions. It arose to manage the growth of the administrative state—bodies created to regulate complex modern society beyond the traditional legislative and judicial branches.
1. The Early Foundations: Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Facts:
William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
Significance for Administrative Law:
Established judicial review — the principle that courts can review government actions and declare them unconstitutional.
This case laid the foundation for courts to review administrative actions and ensure legality.
Though not about agencies per se, it set the stage for judicial oversight of all government acts, including those by agencies.
2. The Rise of the Administrative State: ICC v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. (1897)
Facts:
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), established by Congress to regulate railroads, issued orders to railroad companies. The companies challenged ICC’s authority to regulate rates.
Significance:
The Supreme Court acknowledged Congress’s power to create administrative agencies with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers.
It recognized that agencies could make rules and adjudicate disputes.
This marked the emergence of agencies as distinct from courts and legislatures.
3. Separation of Powers & Nondelegation Doctrine: J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Facts:
The case dealt with Congress delegating tariff-setting authority to the President.
Significance:
The Court upheld broad delegation of legislative powers to executive agencies, so long as Congress lays down an “intelligible principle” to guide them.
This was crucial for administrative law because Congress often delegates powers to agencies to handle technical, detailed regulations.
This decision legitimized the modern administrative state, allowing agencies to act under delegated authority.
4. Fairness & Due Process in Agency Adjudication: Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Facts:
Denver assessed special taxes for street improvements without providing individual hearings to affected property owners.
Significance:
The Supreme Court ruled that when administrative decisions affect individuals’ rights or property, due process requires notice and a hearing.
This established the principle that administrative agencies must provide procedural fairness in adjudication.
It set early limits on arbitrary agency actions.
5. Expansion of Judicial Review: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations interpreting a section of the Clean Air Act. The question was whether courts should defer to EPA’s interpretation.
Significance:
This is the most important administrative law case.
Established the famous “Chevron deference” doctrine:
If Congress’s intent is clear, courts follow that.
If Congress’s intent is ambiguous, courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
This decision greatly expanded agency discretion and judicial deference to agency expertise.
It shaped how courts review agency rulemaking and interpretation.
6. Procedural Fairness in Rulemaking: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983)
Facts:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded a rule requiring passive restraints (seat belts, airbags) without proper explanation.
Significance:
The Supreme Court held that an agency’s action must not be “arbitrary or capricious”.
Agencies must provide reasoned explanations for policy changes.
Established the standard of “arbitrary and capricious review” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This case protects against unexplained agency reversals and requires transparency.
7. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Its Judicial Review Framework (1946)
While not a case, the APA is the cornerstone statute regulating agency procedures: rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review.
Key Provisions:
Requires agencies to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Establishes standards for judicial review.
Protects the public from unfair agency practices.
Has been interpreted and applied in countless cases (e.g., State Farm, Chevron).
8. Limits on Agency Power: INS v. Chadha (1983)
Facts:
Congress passed a legislative veto provision allowing either house to overturn administrative decisions by simple resolution.
Significance:
The Supreme Court held the legislative veto unconstitutional.
Reaffirmed separation of powers principles.
Agencies can act under delegation, but Congress cannot retain unconstitutional controls over agency actions.
This case reinforced the boundaries of agency authority and Congress’s proper role.
9. Due Process and Informal Adjudication: Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts:
The state terminated welfare benefits without a pre-termination hearing.
Significance:
The Supreme Court ruled that when benefits are terminated, individuals are entitled to a pre-termination hearing.
This case extended due process protections to administrative agency actions affecting individuals.
Established the principle that even informal agency decisions impacting rights require fair procedures.
10. Public Participation and Transparency: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978)
Facts:
Environmental groups challenged NRC’s rulemaking procedures for licensing nuclear plants.
Significance:
The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot impose additional procedural requirements beyond those in the APA.
Reinforced that agencies have discretion to design procedures, within APA limits.
This case balanced public participation with efficient agency functioning.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Contribution to Administrative Law |
|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | 1803 | Judicial review foundation |
| ICC v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway | 1897 | Recognized agency quasi-legislative/adjudicative powers |
| Londoner v. Denver | 1908 | Due process requires hearing in agency adjudication affecting rights |
| J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S. | 1928 | Delegation doctrine; agencies need intelligible principle |
| Goldberg v. Kelly | 1970 | Due process in administrative benefits termination |
| Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC | 1978 | Agencies set procedural rules within APA limits |
| Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm | 1983 | Arbitrary and capricious standard for agency rule changes |
| INS v. Chadha | 1983 | Legislative veto unconstitutional; limits on congressional control |
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC | 1984 | Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretation |
Conclusion
The growth of administrative law in the USA mirrors the growth of the administrative state itself. From the early recognition of judicial review to the delegation of legislative power to agencies, the law evolved to balance agency expertise and discretion with due process, transparency, and accountability. Key doctrines like Chevron deference, arbitrary and capricious review, and due process protections ensure agencies operate within legal bounds while effectively managing complex modern governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments