Progressive Era reforms and administrative law
Progressive Era Reforms and Administrative Law
Background:
The Progressive Era (roughly 1890s to 1920s) was a time of widespread social, political, and economic reform in the United States. It aimed to curb the abuses of big business, improve government efficiency, and protect public welfare.
A significant feature of the Progressive Era was the creation and expansion of administrative agencies — government bodies with the power to regulate specific areas such as labor, commerce, food safety, and public utilities. These agencies often had quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, meaning they could make rules (regulations) and adjudicate disputes.
This raised questions about the scope of administrative power, the limits of executive authority, and the role of courts in reviewing agency actions, which is the foundation of administrative law.
Key Concepts in Progressive Era Administrative Law:
Delegation of Legislative Power: Congress delegating power to agencies to create regulations.
Due Process and Fair Hearing: Ensuring agencies follow fair procedures before penalizing individuals or businesses.
Judicial Review: Courts reviewing agency decisions to ensure they are lawful and reasonable.
Checks and Balances: Preventing agencies from exercising unchecked power.
Important Cases Explaining Administrative Law in the Progressive Era and Later
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Though post-Progressive Era, this case crystallizes administrative law principles rooted in earlier reforms.
Issue: How much deference should courts give to administrative agencies' interpretation of statutes they administer?
Holding: Courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute (known as Chevron deference).
Explanation: The Court created a two-step test:
Has Congress directly spoken on the precise issue? If yes, follow Congress.
If not, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable? If yes, defer to the agency.
Significance: This case legitimized the broad regulatory authority of agencies, a hallmark of Progressive Era reforms expanded in the 20th century.
2. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856)
Pre-Progressive Era but foundational.
Issue: Can courts review the jurisdiction and proceedings of administrative or executive tribunals?
Holding: Courts have the authority to review and enforce the limits on administrative or executive decisions.
Explanation: This case established that administrative agencies are subject to judicial oversight to ensure they don’t exceed their legal authority.
Significance: It laid groundwork for the principle of judicial review of administrative actions, which Progressive Era reforms later institutionalized.
3. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath (1950)
Issue: Due process in administrative deportation proceedings.
Holding: Deportation procedures must comply with constitutional due process guarantees.
Explanation: The Court emphasized that even administrative actions impacting liberty require fair hearing procedures.
Significance: This case extends Progressive Era concerns about administrative fairness into immigration law, highlighting procedural safeguards.
4. ICC v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. (1897) — The Shreveport Rate Case
Issue: Did the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) have authority to regulate intrastate railroad rates that affected interstate commerce?
Holding: Yes, the ICC could regulate intrastate rates if they had a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce.
Explanation: The Court upheld the ICC’s regulatory power over intrastate activities impacting interstate commerce.
Significance: This case expanded federal administrative power, a key goal of Progressive reformers who sought to regulate railroads and monopolies effectively.
5. J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)
Issue: Is Congress allowed to delegate legislative power to the executive branch (e.g., tariff-setting power)?
Holding: Delegation is constitutional if Congress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the delegate.
Explanation: The Court upheld broad congressional delegation of authority to executive agencies as long as guidelines are clear.
Significance: This case legitimized much of the administrative state by allowing agencies to make detailed rules, central to Progressive Era reforms.
6. Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause require a hearing before an administrative body imposes special assessments on property owners?
Holding: Yes, due process requires notice and a hearing when a decision is made based on specific facts affecting individuals.
Explanation: The Court ruled that when administrative actions are adjudicative (fact-finding affecting individual rights), due process applies.
Significance: This case differentiates rulemaking (general policies) from adjudication (individual decisions), an important concept in administrative law.
7. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915)
Issue: Does due process require a hearing when an administrative agency sets a general tax rate affecting many people?
Holding: No, due process does not require a hearing for general rulemaking affecting large groups.
Explanation: The Court distinguished between broad rulemaking (no hearing required) and individualized adjudication (hearing required).
Significance: This case clarifies limits on procedural due process in administrative actions, balancing efficiency and fairness.
Summary:
Progressive Era reforms led to the creation of regulatory agencies with broad powers.
Courts had to develop doctrines around delegation of power, due process, and judicial review of agency actions.
Cases like J.W. Hampton, Shreveport Rate Case, Londoner, and Bi-Metallic laid foundational principles.
Modern cases like Chevron build on this legacy, supporting agency expertise and regulatory flexibility.
These principles help maintain a balance between effective government regulation and protection of individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments