Also known as: intelligible principle · nondelegation doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard requiring Congress to articulate a guiding policy when delegating legislative authority to executive agencies or officers. The standard permits broad discretion in delegation provided the principle allows courts to determine whether the agency has followed the law.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Congress created the Manufacturing Standards Board and directed it to issue rules advancing modern industry by setting production methods and output quotas. The Board adopted nationwide quotas that applied to a family-owned plant operated by Rivera Manufacturing. Rivera challenged the rules on nondelegation grounds. The court upheld the delegation because the statutory goal supplied an intelligible principle guiding the Board's discretion.
Congress passed an energy statute granting tax credits for multiple clean energy projects including small modular nuclear facilities. The President signed the bill then unilaterally canceled the nuclear credits and directed the IRS to disregard them. AtomWave Energy sued to enforce the credits. The court considered whether the statute supplied an intelligible principle guiding the President's discretion.
Congress authorized the President to adjust import duties on goods to equalize competitive conditions between domestic and foreign producers. The President imposed higher duties on certain chemicals imported by J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. The company protested that the delegation lacked sufficient guidance. The court sustained the statute because the equalization directive provided an intelligible principle limiting the President's discretion.
Congress enacted a deficit reduction statute directing the Comptroller General to calculate automatic spending cuts if targets were missed. The Comptroller implemented sequestration that reduced payments to federal retirees represented by a union. The union sued claiming the delegation was invalid. The court examined whether the statutory targets supplied an intelligible principle guiding the calculations.
Congress authorized the President to prohibit interstate shipment of petroleum produced in excess of state quotas to stabilize the oil market. Panama Refining Co. shipped oil above the quota and faced enforcement. The company argued the statute conferred unguided power. The court assessed whether the stabilization objective constituted an intelligible principle constraining the prohibition authority.
A federal statute required agencies to consult on actions that might affect endangered species abroad. Defenders of Wildlife sued the Interior Department after funding decisions threatened overseas habitats. The Department argued the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the delegation. The court considered whether the statutory consultation directive supplied an intelligible principle that courts could apply to review agency compliance.
Congress must supply an intelligible principle that guides the agency's exercise of discretion and permits courts to determine whether the agency has followed the law. Broad policy statements such as advancing modern industry or protecting the public interest have been held sufficient. The principle prevents Congress from transferring core legislative policy-making power without any standard.
Supporting sources
…in J. W. Hampton & Co. v. United States , 276 U. S. 394, 409 (1928): "If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power." In practice, however,…
…"executive" power but only to strengthen the procedures it has legislatively mandated. "We have long recognized that the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from seeking assistance, within proper limits, from its coordinate Branches." Touby v. United States , 500 U. S. 160, 165 (1991). "Congress does not violate the…
…"the totality of the Act's standards, definitions, context, and reference to past administrative practice provides an adequate intelligible principle' to guide and confine administrative decision making." 626 F. Supp., at 1389. Although the District Court concluded that the Act survived a delegation
…more familiar words, the Constitution permits only those delegations where Congress "shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle
…robust nondelegation doctrines designed to ensure democratic accountability in their state lawmaking processes. See R. May, The Nondelegation Doctrine
No. The doctrine permits broad or general policy directives rather than specific rules or methodologies. Courts have upheld delegations framed in terms of public interest, fair competition, or environmental protection. The key requirement is that the principle be clear enough to constrain agency discretion and enable judicial review.
Supporting sources
The delegation violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. Without any guiding standard the agency would be free to make fundamental policy choices on its own, transferring legislative power in violation of separation of powers. Courts have invalidated such delegations when the statute leaves the agency without meaningful boundaries.
Supporting sources
No. Procedural safeguards help ensure agency action remains tied to the statutory goal but do not themselves supply the substantive standard needed to guide policy choices. The statute must still articulate a policy objective that channels the agency's discretion on the merits.
Supporting sources