Limits on agency authority
Limits on Agency Authority
What is Agency Authority?
Administrative agencies are created by legislatures to enforce laws and regulations within specific areas such as environmental protection, finance, labor, and public health. However, their powers are not unlimited. Limits on agency authority exist to ensure agencies act within the scope of their legal mandate, respect constitutional rights, and maintain the rule of law.
Types of Limits on Agency Authority
Statutory Limits – Agencies must act within powers granted by their enabling statutes.
Constitutional Limits – Agencies must respect constitutional protections (due process, free speech, etc.).
Procedural Limits – Agencies must follow required procedures (notice-and-comment rulemaking, hearings).
Judicial Review – Courts have authority to review and possibly invalidate agency actions exceeding their powers.
Key Case Law Illustrating Limits on Agency Authority
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted the Clean Air Act to allow states flexibility in regulating emissions. NRDC challenged this interpretation.
Issue:
When courts review agency statutory interpretation, how much deference should be given?
Holding:
The Supreme Court established the Chevron deference doctrine, a two-step test:
Has Congress directly spoken to the precise issue? If yes, the agency must follow that intent.
If the statute is ambiguous, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?
Courts generally defer to reasonable agency interpretations.
Limit on Agency:
Agencies cannot go beyond clear Congressional intent.
Judicial review ensures agency interpretations are reasonable and lawful.
2. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)
Facts:
The FDA tried to regulate tobacco products under its general authority to regulate drugs and medical devices.
Issue:
Did the FDA have statutory authority to regulate tobacco?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that Congress did not intend to grant the FDA authority over tobacco.
The agency’s assertion of power was rejected because it contradicted the statutory framework and Congressional intent.
Limit on Agency:
Agencies cannot expand their authority beyond explicit or implicit legislative grants, especially when Congress has legislated specifically elsewhere.
3. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Facts:
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had a rule allowing Congress to veto certain decisions by a one-house legislative action.
Issue:
Did this legislative veto violate constitutional separation of powers?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the legislative veto violated the Presentment Clause and bicameralism.
Agencies cannot be subjected to legislative actions that violate constitutional procedures.
Limit on Agency:
Congressional control over agencies must respect constitutional separation of powers; legislative vetoes are unconstitutional.
4. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Facts:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rescinded a rule requiring passive restraints without providing a reasoned explanation.
Issue:
Was the rescission arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
Holding:
The Court held that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for policy changes.
Arbitrary or capricious actions exceed agency authority.
Limit on Agency:
Agencies must follow procedural requirements and provide justifications for decisions, respecting reasoned decision-making.
5. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Facts:
The IRS issued regulations interpreting the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies’ availability to federally-run exchanges.
Issue:
Did the IRS exceed its authority by extending subsidies beyond state exchanges?
Holding:
The Court deferred to the agency’s interpretation under Chevron but clarified limits: the interpretation must align with the statutory context and purpose.
The agency’s reasonable interpretation was upheld.
Limit on Agency:
Agencies have discretion but must stay within the bounds of statutory purpose and context.
6. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
Facts:
During the Korean War, President Truman ordered seizure of steel mills without Congressional authorization.
Issue:
Did the President (and by extension executive agencies) have authority to seize private property without Congressional approval?
Holding:
The Court ruled the seizure unconstitutional because there was no Congressional authorization.
Established the principle of limited executive/agency power without statutory or constitutional grant.
Limit on Agency:
Executive agencies cannot act absent clear authority from Congress or the Constitution.
7. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts:
EPA refused to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Issue:
Did EPA have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held EPA did have the authority and must consider regulating if pollutants endanger public health.
The agency could not refuse to act without reasonable justification.
Limit on Agency:
Agencies must exercise their authority consistent with statutory mandates and cannot decline to act arbitrarily.
Summary Table of Limits on Agency Authority
| Limit Type | Case Example | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory Limits | Brown & Williamson (2000) | Agency cannot exceed Congressional grant |
| Judicial Review | Chevron (1984) | Courts defer if agency’s interpretation reasonable |
| Constitutional Limits | INS v. Chadha (1983) | Legislative veto invalid; separation of powers |
| Procedural Limits | Motor Vehicle v. State Farm (1983) | Agencies must provide reasoned explanation |
| Executive Authority | Youngstown (1952) | No executive action without clear authority |
| Statutory Mandate | Mass. v. EPA (2007) | Agencies must act when statutory criteria met |
Conclusion
Administrative agencies operate within a framework of carefully calibrated limits to prevent overreach. Courts play a crucial role in:
Ensuring agencies stay within their statutory mandates.
Protecting constitutional structures (separation of powers, due process).
Requiring fair and reasoned procedures.
Reviewing decisions for arbitrariness or abuse of discretion.
This balance preserves agency effectiveness while guarding individual rights and democratic accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments