The Supreme Court, Gundy v. United States, and the administrative state: The conservative justices may paralyze the Biden administration.
Category: News & Politics
Via: thomas • 4 years ago • 14 commentsBy: Hannah Mullen, Sejal Singh (Slate Magazine)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Even the most basic government functions would grind to a halt.
By Hannah Mullen and Sejal SinghDec 01, 202012:56 PM
The Department of Education is just one of the agencies that could be affected.Alastair Pike/Getty Images
Joe Biden promised us an FDR-sized presidency—starting with bold action to halt the spread of COVID-19, end the worst economic downturn in decades, and stop the climate crisis. Biden could use regulation and executive action to move quickly to decarbonize the economy, cancel student loan debt, and raise wages. But a Biden administration has an even bigger problem than two long-shot special elections in Georgia: the new 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court may soon burn down the federal government's regulatory powers.
At least five conservative justices have signaled that they are eager to revive the "non-delegation doctrine," the constitutional principle that Congress can't give ("delegate") too much lawmaking power to the executive branch. On paper, the rule requires Congress, when delegating power to an agency, to articulate an "intelligible principle" (like air pollution regulation needed "to protect public health") to guide the agency's exercise of that power. But in practice, the nondelegation doctrine is effectively dead. The court has only struck down two statutes on nondelegation grounds—and none since 1935.
Today, most of the government's work is done through the "administrative state," the administrative agencies and offices, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education, which issue regulations and enforce laws. Congress doesn't have the capacity to pass laws that nimbly address complex, technical, and ever-changing problems like air pollution, COVID-19 exposure in workplaces, drug testing, and the disposal of nuclear waste. So Congress tasks agencies staffed with scientists and other specialists to craft regulations that directly address those problems. This division of responsibility—Congress legislates policy goals and agencies implement them effectively—is the foundation of functional government.
Take, for example, the Clean Air Act. In 1963, Congress ordered the EPA to regulate air quality standards "at a level that is requisite to protect public health." Based on that authority, the EPA routinely issues lifesaving regulations limiting lead in the air, air pollutants coming from chemical plants, and, critically, greenhouse gasses. Biden can use the CAA to start tackling the climate crisis on Day One. The dormant nondelegation doctrine is the foundation of thousands of regulations across dozens of agencies, allowing agencies to make technical decisions about, say, hospital reimbursement rates to administer Medicare or wage and hour rules that protect workers from exploitation.
But last year, in a case called Gundy v. United States, four conservative justices announced that they wanted to bring the nondelegation doctrine back to life. Gundy arose out of a national sex offender registry law that explicitly applied to everyone convicted after the law took effect but delegated authority to the Department of Justice to determine when and how it applied to people convicted before the law took effect. Herman Gundy, who was convicted before the registry law took effect, argued that the law violated the nondelegation doctrine. The court upheld the law. But in a dissent joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court should revive the dormant nondelegation doctrine.* Gorsuch's dissent argued that Congress may only delegate policymaking power to agencies under three narrow circumstances: to "fill up the details" of a legislative scheme; for executive fact-finding to determine the application of a rule; and to assign nonlegislative responsibilities to the executive and judicial branches. Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to say he'd like to "reconsider" the nondelegation doctrine—just not in a case about sex offenders' rights.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasn't on the court in time to hear Gundy. But last fall, in a separate opinion, he signaled his support for Gorsuch's new, revived nondelegation doctrine. That makes five votes for resurrecting the nondelegation doctrine and taking a hatchet to landmark labor, environmental, and consumer protection law—even without Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who, administrative law experts warn, shares the conservative justices' hostility to the administrative state.
As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in Gundy if the conservative justices bring back the nondelegation doctrine, "most of Government is unconstitutional." Exactly how much government would be unconstitutional, though, isn't clear. What does Gorsuch mean when he writes that Congress may give agencies the power to "fill up the details" of a legislative scheme? What does Kavanaugh's test—that Congress may not delegate "major policy questions" to agencies—actually forbid in practice? Would Biden's EPA be permitted to issue regulations about greenhouse gasses or new, dangerous chemicals leaking into our public waters? Congress relies on OSHA experts to set workplace safety standards that are "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment." Does that "delegate" too much power to OSHA to act fast to issue COVID-19 safety standards for transportation, grocery stores, and meatpacking workers, as Joe Biden has promised to do? What about the EEOC's power to interpret anti-discrimination to address workplace dress codes that discriminate against Black women's natural hair? What about the FDA's authority under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to subject "any" tobacco products to federal regulations—is "tobacco products" narrow enough under Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's tests? Or would an FDA decision to regulate Juul just like cigarettes be a "major policy question" outside agencies' powers?
The uncertainty alone could give special interests like fossil fuel companies and Juul grounds to sue to stop, or at least hold up, lifesaving regulations issued by the Biden administration. They're already trying—just last year, e-cigarette company "Big Time Vapes" argued that the FDA's power to regulate "any" tobacco product violated the nondelegation doctrine. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected that challenge. But in its opinion, the 5th Circuit hinted that similar challenges could soon be successful, as the Supreme Court "might well decide—perhaps soon—to reexamine or revive the nondelegation doctrine." And if that happens, all bets are off.
Such a decision would not only threaten existing regulations. It endangers every piece of future progressive legislation, too. Big, transformative legislative packages, like a Green New Deal or "Medicare for All," would require a million and one technical decisions that Congress is poorly positioned to make. Biden and Congress can pass legislation phasing the United States toward 100 percent clean energy by 2030—but someone will have to actually sweat the details about which engines can be included in which cars.
Government doesn't work without the administrative state. But that's sort of the point. The conservative justices have long been hostile to regulation and executive action. And now they may finally have the votes to bring virtually any regulation to a halt. At least five justices are ready to drop a 1,000-pound anvil on any Biden administration rule that displeases them.
Correction, Dec. 2, 2020: This article originally misstated that Alito joined Gorsuch's dissent. It was Justice Clarence Thomas.
Tags
Who is online
443 visitors
This could be interesting. ...
I read that article early this morning and it sent me down the rabbit hole of reviewing Scalia's position on the 'nondelegation doctrine'. I read a couple of essays, one from ND and one from Stanford and both come to the same conclusion. Scalia really wanted to hold Congress to the 'nondelegation doctrine' but acknowledged that the Court couldn't enforce it.
From his dissent in Mistretta v. United States:
So the Scalia conservatives on the Court will have to get past their mentor's own legal position.
One has to wonder how they will justify trying to draw the line when even Scalia couldn't figure out where to draw it...
Well, that is the question, isn't it? That is always the question: To what Degree?
They can state this, but every time there is a new issue, it will be dragged in front of the court. I don't see this as being practical but rather grandstanding.
Practical? Not in the slightest. But it sure would give the lawyers a good deal of business. If they do revive this nondelegation doctrine, it could bog down the rule-making process. I am unsure, but if the congress says, "Yeah. That's what we meant that they are doing right now." seems like this could be just that, grandstanding, or just throwing a wrench in the works...
Sounds like a libertarian's wet dream
Not at all. I consider myself libertarian in the non-party meaning of the word, and I think that this sounds like a bad idea from the word "go".
I should have clarified my comment. The conservative party members of the Libertarian Party would get all twiddlepated over this.
As it should. I hardly think it desirable for non-elected government workers to enact laws. We already have too much of that already. It seems to me the only people who would support this are those who want big government, regulating every part of our lives. No thank you.
I agree that we need some level of administrative authority, but Congress has gotten into the habit of looking to the Executive, Judicial, and Administrative parts of government to manage issues they use to handle themselves. Congress' approval rating has been declining for many years and I think that is due in large part to their inability or unwillingness to actually get any work done. It seems as if Congress has dodged being accountable to the voters by giving them very little to consider when it comes around to election time.
Tacos - at present, Congressional approval rating is at 20% and sliding downhill. The "people" are saying that there is TOO MUCH regulation and not enough guidance. Maybe SCOTUS is hearing the "people" much better than Congress is.
I find it interesting that conservatives seem to be demanding that the Congress spell out in detail the content of the regulations needed to meet the mandates in their legislation yet they constantly bitch about the number of pages in legislation and how impossible it is to read it all before they vote.
Congress can easily include a legislative mandate that the Committee of Jurisdiction review and authorize the final regulations once they are finalized.
This is weird. I guess it isn't super important to the main theme of the piece, but I doubt Congress ordered the EPA to do anything in 1963. The EPA was created in 1970. Just saying.
The article is incorrect in that statement. Thank you for pointing that out.