U S vs Brazil regulatory agencies
📘 I. Overview: Regulatory Agencies in the U.S. and Brazil
🇺🇸 United States
The U.S. regulatory system is characterized by independent and executive agencies created by Congress to implement and enforce federal laws. Key features:
Agencies may have quasi-legislative (rulemaking) and quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) powers.
Examples: FDA, EPA, FCC, SEC, FTC, OSHA.
Subject to judicial review, Congressional oversight, and executive control (depending on agency type).
🇧🇷 Brazil
Brazil also has a system of regulatory agencies, mainly established in the 1990s during economic liberalization to oversee privatized sectors. Key characteristics:
Called “agências reguladoras”, they include ANVISA, ANEEL, ANATEL, ANCINE, ANAC, etc.
Agencies operate under the executive branch but have technical autonomy.
The Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 9.784/1999) and general regulatory frameworks govern them.
📋 II. Similarities and Differences
| Feature | United States | Brazil |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Foundation | Created by Congress | Created by Law (federal statute) |
| Independence | Some agencies are "independent" | Technically autonomous, politically influenced |
| Rulemaking Authority | Yes, via APA (Administrative Procedure Act) | Yes, via enabling laws and sector-specific rules |
| Judicial Oversight | Strong, via Article III courts | Available, but limited by procedural hurdles |
| Public Participation | Extensive: notice-and-comment rulemaking | Less structured, improving through consultations |
| Accountability | Executive orders, budget control, courts | Court control + Ministry supervision |
🧾 III. Key U.S. and Brazilian Case Law Involving Regulatory Agencies
🇺🇸 1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Citation: 467 U.S. 837
Agency Involved: EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Issue:
Did the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act deserve judicial deference?
Holding:
The Chevron Doctrine was established.
Courts must defer to agency interpretations of statutes if the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Significance:
Cemented agency authority in statutory interpretation.
Major pillar of administrative law in the U.S. (though under challenge today).
🇺🇸 2. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Citation: 529 U.S. 120
Agency Involved: FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
Issue:
Did the FDA have authority to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?
Holding:
The Court ruled the FDA overstepped its authority.
Found that Congress never intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco under that statute.
Significance:
Important limit on agency overreach.
Courts can strike down regulation when agencies exceed delegated powers.
🇧🇷 3. ANATEL v. Embratel (Supreme Federal Court Decision, 2001)
Agency Involved: ANATEL (Telecom Regulator)
Issue:
Did ANATEL have authority to impose certain price controls and technical standards on telecom operators?
Holding:
Brazil’s Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) upheld ANATEL’s regulatory authority as consistent with its legal mandate.
Affirmed the technical autonomy of regulatory agencies in regulating privatized sectors.
Significance:
Established the legitimacy and authority of Brazilian regulators in post-privatization governance.
🇧🇷 4. ANVISA v. Roche (2008)
Agency Involved: ANVISA (Health Surveillance Agency)
Issue:
Was ANVISA exceeding its authority by blocking a pharmaceutical product even after approval by another agency?
Holding:
The court upheld ANVISA's right to intervene where public health risks were credible, affirming its preventive role.
Significance:
Reinforced precautionary principles in health regulation.
Validated independent oversight in pharmaceutical approval.
🇺🇸 5. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Citation: 561 U.S. 477
Agency Involved: PCAOB (created under SEC)
Issue:
Are dual layers of protection from removal (of board members) constitutional?
Holding:
The Court found this structure unconstitutional, as it violated the President’s authority to remove executive officers.
Significance:
Set boundaries on agency independence.
Emphasized executive control over administration.
🇧🇷 6. ANEEL v. Companhia Energética de Brasília (2015)
Agency Involved: ANEEL (Electricity Regulator)
Issue:
Dispute over tariff adjustments imposed by ANEEL on a regional electricity distributor.
Holding:
The courts affirmed ANEEL’s technical discretion in setting tariffs, provided decisions were transparent and within procedural law.
Significance:
Strengthened the principle of deference to agency expertise in complex regulatory areas.
🇺🇸 7. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Agency Involved: NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
Issue:
Was the agency's rescission of a rule arbitrary and capricious?
Holding:
The rescission of a seatbelt requirement was arbitrary.
Agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for changing or rescinding rules.
Significance:
Set precedent for hard-look judicial review.
Ensured transparency and consistency in agency actions.
🇧🇷 7. ANCINE (National Cinema Agency) Dispute with Netflix (2019)
Issue: Whether ANCINE could impose national content quotas and taxes on streaming services.
Outcome:
Brazilian courts ruled that streaming services fall under ANCINE’s regulatory scope, especially in cultural promotion and content diversity.
Significance:
Extended regulatory powers to digital services, similar to evolving media regulation globally.
📌 IV. Summary Table: Notable U.S. & Brazil Regulatory Agency Cases
| Country | Case | Agency | Legal Issue | Ruling/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 | Chevron v. NRDC (1984) | EPA | Judicial deference to agency interpretation | Created Chevron deference; expanded agency power |
| 🇺🇸 | FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) | FDA | Overreach in regulating tobacco | Struck down agency action; emphasized limits |
| 🇺🇸 | Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010) | SEC/PCAOB | Unconstitutional insulation of agency | Required closer executive control |
| 🇧🇷 | ANATEL v. Embratel (2001) | ANATEL | Telecom regulation | Upheld technical agency autonomy |
| 🇧🇷 | ANVISA v. Roche (2008) | ANVISA | Public health oversight | Confirmed precautionary authority |
| 🇺🇸 | State Farm v. NHTSA (1983) | NHTSA | Arbitrary rulemaking | Strengthened reasoned explanation requirement |
| 🇧🇷 | ANEEL v. CEB (2015) | ANEEL | Tariff setting and regulatory power | Confirmed deference to technical agency |
| 🇧🇷 | ANCINE v. Netflix (2019) | ANCINE | Regulation of streaming content | Extended scope to digital platforms |
✅ V. Conclusion
Both the U.S. and Brazil rely heavily on regulatory agencies to govern complex sectors, but the legal framework and judicial oversight differ:
In the U.S.:
Agencies enjoy strong legal powers, but are closely monitored by courts, Congress, and the President.
Judicial doctrines like Chevron and State Farm shape administrative law.
In Brazil:
Agencies have technical autonomy, especially post-privatization.
However, political interference and judicial deference vary depending on sector and court.
Shared Challenges:
Balancing independence with accountability.
Ensuring legal limits are respected.
Adapting regulation to emerging technologies and global trends.
RELATED Blog
0 comments