Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard that Congress must articulate when delegating rulemaking or regulatory authority to an executive agency or officer. The standard must be sufficiently clear to permit courts to determine whether the agency has stayed within the bounds of the delegation and to prevent the agency from exercising unfettered legislative power.
Sources & Authorities· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Manufacturing Standards Board Challenge
Congress enacted the Industrial Modernization Act creating the Manufacturing Standards Board and directing it to issue rules that advance modern industry by setting production methods and output quotas. Rivera Manufacturing, a family-owned plant, challenged the resulting regulations as an unconstitutional delegation. The court upheld the delegation because the statutory directive to advance modern industry supplied an intelligible principle that guided the Board's discretion.
Occupational Safety Standard Dispute
Congress authorized the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue standards that are reasonably necessary to protect workers from toxic substances. Industrial Union Department challenged a benzene exposure limit on nondelegation grounds. The reviewing court sustained the delegation because the statutory directive to set standards requisite to protect health supplied an intelligible principle.
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute448 U.S. 607, 686–87 (1980)
Sentencing Guidelines Challenge
Congress created a sentencing commission within the judicial branch and directed it to promulgate guidelines that further the purposes of sentencing. A defendant challenged the resulting guidelines as an invalid delegation. The court upheld the statute because the directive to further the statutory purposes of sentencing provided an intelligible principle.
Mistretta v. United States488 U.S. 361 (1989)
Budget Reduction Authority Dispute
Congress directed the Comptroller General to calculate automatic spending reductions when deficit targets were missed. A member of Congress challenged the mechanism as an unconstitutional delegation. The court sustained the delegation because the statutory formula for calculating reductions supplied an intelligible principle.
Bowsher v. Synar478 U.S. 714 (1986)
Air Quality Standard Challenge
Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to set ambient air quality standards requisite to protect public health. American Trucking Associations challenged the resulting ozone standard on nondelegation grounds. The court upheld the delegation because the health-protection directive supplied an intelligible principle.
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.531 U.S. 457, 487 (2001)
Tariff Adjustment Dispute
Congress authorized the President to adjust tariff rates to equalize production costs between domestic and foreign manufacturers. An importer challenged the resulting rate adjustment as an invalid delegation. The court sustained the delegation because the statutory goal of equalizing costs supplied an intelligible principle.
J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What is the minimum guidance Congress must provide when delegating authority to an agency?+
Congress must supply an intelligible principle that guides the agency's exercise of discretion. Courts have upheld very general directives such as protecting public health or advancing a balanced energy supply. The principle need not be detailed or quantitative.
Does the intelligible principle requirement apply when Congress delegates authority to a commission within the judicial branch?+
Yes. The requirement remains the same. Congress may delegate sentencing guideline authority to a commission that includes judges provided it supplies an intelligible principle and the delegation does not undermine judicial integrity.
How does a court determine whether a statute supplies an intelligible principle?
+
The court construes the statute to identify the task delegated and the instructions provided. If the statute states a general policy and boundaries for agency action, the delegation is valid even if the agency retains significant discretion over implementation details.
Can procedural requirements such as public hearings substitute for an intelligible principle?+
No. Procedural safeguards help ensure agency action remains tied to the statutory goal but do not replace the need for a substantive standard. The statute must still articulate a policy that guides the agency's substantive choices.
What happens if a statute supplies no intelligible principle at all?+
The delegation is unconstitutional. Congress may not hand an agency completely standardless legislative power because that would violate separation of powers by allowing the executive to make fundamental policy decisions.
." Rather, it speaks in much simpler terms: " All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." U. S. Const., Art. 1, § 1 (emphasis added). I am not convinced that the…
intelligible principle
" to guide the exercise of the delegated discretion. Third, and derivative of the second, the doctrine ensures that courts charged with reviewing the exercise of delegated legislative…
”[^disA-26] by which delegated authority may be guided. See generally 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§2.01 to 2.05 (1958). In his words, “The difficulty and complexity of some…
Constitutional LawThe separation of powers · The powers of CongressUBEIntermediate