Judicial skepticism of administrative power
Context
Administrative agencies in the U.S. have broad powers to make rules, enforce regulations, and adjudicate disputes. However, courts often display skepticism toward the extent of this power, especially when agencies exceed statutory authority, violate constitutional limits, or infringe upon individual rights.
Judicial skepticism arises from concerns about:
Separation of powers (legislative vs. executive vs. judicial).
Agencies acting beyond their delegated authority (ultra vires).
Lack of procedural fairness or due process.
Excessive deference to agency interpretations (Chevron doctrine).
Agencies wielding power in a way that threatens individual liberties.
Key Case Law Illustrating Judicial Skepticism
1. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)
Facts: The FDA attempted to regulate tobacco products as “drugs” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Issue: Whether the FDA had statutory authority to regulate tobacco.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the FDA lacked authority because Congress had not intended the FDA to regulate tobacco, especially given the extensive legislative history of tobacco regulation.
Judicial Skepticism: The Court emphasized that agencies cannot expand their jurisdiction beyond congressional intent, signaling skepticism toward agency power expansions.
Significance: The case illustrates limits on agency authority when agency action conflicts with legislative intent.
2. City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)
Facts: The question was how much deference courts should give to an agency’s interpretation of statutory jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether courts must defer to the FCC’s interpretation of its own jurisdictional reach.
Holding: The Court held that courts should generally defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous jurisdictional questions.
Judicial Skepticism: Though affirming Chevron deference, the case sparked debate about courts’ willingness to defer, reflecting judicial caution in allowing unchecked agency power.
Significance: It reasserted deference but underscored the careful judicial balancing act regarding agency authority.
3. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)
Facts: EPA issued a rule regulating hazardous air pollutants from power plants but did not consider costs when deciding to regulate.
Issue: Whether the EPA must consider costs when determining if regulation is "appropriate and necessary."
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that EPA unreasonably failed to consider costs.
Judicial Skepticism: The Court applied strict scrutiny on the agency’s decision-making process, requiring reasonable consideration of economic impact.
Significance: The case demonstrates judicial insistence on rational agency decision-making and skepticism of arbitrary or capricious agency actions.
4. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Facts: The IRS interpreted the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to allow federal subsidies for health insurance in federal exchanges.
Issue: Whether the IRS’s interpretation was lawful.
Holding: The Court upheld the IRS interpretation but rejected broad agency power to rewrite clear statutory terms.
Judicial Skepticism: The Court emphasized that agencies cannot “rewrite clear statutory terms to suit their own sense of how the statute should operate.”
Significance: It marks a judicial boundary against excessive administrative reinterpretation.
5. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Facts: DHS rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Issue: Whether DHS followed proper administrative procedures and provided reasoned explanation.
Holding: The Supreme Court held the rescission was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because DHS failed to adequately justify its action.
Judicial Skepticism: The Court’s decision reflected skepticism toward agency actions that fail to provide reasoned and transparent justifications.
Significance: Reinforces the judiciary’s role in policing administrative discretion for rationality and fairness.
6. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Facts: The House vetoed an immigration suspension by the Attorney General.
Issue: Whether legislative veto over agency decisions violates separation of powers.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional.
Judicial Skepticism: This case reflects judicial skepticism of congressional delegation that bypasses constitutional procedures and threatens checks and balances.
Significance: It curtailed improper inter-branch intrusions and emphasized the constitutional limits on administrative and legislative power.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Judicial Skepticism Focus | Outcome and Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) | Agency overreach beyond statutory mandate | Limits on agency authority expansion | Agency lacks power to regulate tobacco |
| City of Arlington v. FCC (2013) | Deference to agency jurisdictional interpretation | Judicial caution on deference | Affirmed Chevron but underscored scrutiny |
| Michigan v. EPA (2015) | Failure to consider costs in rulemaking | Demand for reasoned agency decisions | EPA must consider costs in regulation |
| King v. Burwell (2015) | Limits on agency reinterpretation of clear statutes | Agencies cannot rewrite clear law | Rejected excessive agency reinterpretation |
| DHS v. Regents (2020) | Arbitrary rescission of DACA | Requirement of reasoned justification | Rescission held arbitrary and capricious |
| INS v. Chadha (1983) | Legislative veto violating separation of powers | Checks on administrative and legislative power | Struck down legislative veto |
Conclusion
Judicial skepticism toward administrative power functions as a critical check on agencies, ensuring they operate within statutory bounds, respect constitutional limits, and engage in reasoned decision-making. While courts grant agencies considerable deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes, skepticism arises when agencies act arbitrarily, exceed authority, or infringe upon fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments