Case Commentary: The D.C. Circuit Gives New Life and New Meaning to the Nondelegation Doctrine in American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA
By Patricia Ross McCubbin
INTRODUCTION
On only two occasions, both occurring in 1935, has the United States Supreme Court invalidated an act of Congress by invoking the “nondelegation doctrine,” the constitutional principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority to another branch of government. The Supreme Court and lower courts consistently have upheld broad delegations of authority by Congress to executive branch agencies so long as Congress articulates an “intelligible principle” to guide the agency's exercise of discretion.
On May 14, 1999, however, in American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit contravened those long-standing precedents when it rejected the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act, finding that the Agency violated the nondelegation doctrine by setting nationwide standards for clean air without an “intelligible principle” to constrain its authority. In remanding the EPA's air standards, the court gave the nondelegation doctrine new meaning and contradicted the doctrine's primary purpose by demanding, not that Congress revise the Clean Air Act to provide the necessary “intelligible principle,” but that the EPA itself find in the Clean Air Act a “determinate criterion for drawing lines” to identify what will be deemed acceptable air quality.
If the decision stands, the EPA likely will face significant nondelegation challenges that claim the absence of a “determinate criterion for drawing lines” when the EPA sets standards under other environmental statutes such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
On only two occasions, both occurring in 1935, has the United States Supreme Court invalidated an act of Congress by invoking the “nondelegation doctrine,” the constitutional principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority to another branch of government. The Supreme Court and lower courts consistently have upheld broad delegations of authority by Congress to executive branch agencies so long as Congress articulates an “intelligible principle” to guide the agency's exercise of discretion.
On May 14, 1999, however, in American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit contravened those long-standing precedents when it rejected the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act, finding that the Agency violated the nondelegation doctrine by setting nationwide standards for clean air without an “intelligible principle” to constrain its authority. In remanding the EPA's air standards, the court gave the nondelegation doctrine new meaning and contradicted the doctrine's primary purpose by demanding, not that Congress revise the Clean Air Act to provide the necessary “intelligible principle,” but that the EPA itself find in the Clean Air Act a “determinate criterion for drawing lines” to identify what will be deemed acceptable air quality.
If the decision stands, the EPA likely will face significant nondelegation challenges that claim the absence of a “determinate criterion for drawing lines” when the EPA sets standards under other environmental statutes such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
