Also known as: intelligible principle · intelligible-principle · nondelegation doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard that Congress must supply when delegating legislative authority to executive agencies or officers. The standard guides the agency's exercise of discretion so that courts can determine whether the agency has followed the law. Without it the delegation violates separation of powers by transferring core legislative power without meaningful legislative direction.
Congress created the Manufacturing Standards Board and directed it to issue rules advancing modern industry. The Board then set production methods and output quotas for all factories. Imperial Motors challenged the rules claiming the statute supplied no guiding standard. The court upheld the delegation because the statutory goal of advancing modern industry provided an intelligible principle.
Congress authorized the Tariff Commission to adjust import duties to equalize production costs between domestic and foreign goods. The Commission raised duties on certain imports after investigation. J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. contested the increase. The court sustained the delegation because the equalization directive supplied an intelligible principle.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Congress directed an agency to issue permits for projects affecting endangered species while minimizing harm. The agency approved a development that reduced habitat. Defenders of Wildlife sued claiming the statute left too much discretion. The court rejected the challenge because the minimization directive constituted an intelligible principle.
Congress passed an appropriations bill containing numerous spending provisions. The President signed the bill then canceled several items. The City of New York challenged the cancellations. The court held the line-item cancellations unconstitutional because they exceeded the intelligible-principle limits on delegated authority.
Congress authorized an agency to prohibit transportation of petroleum in interstate commerce when necessary to prevent waste. The agency banned all shipments from certain fields. Panama Refining Co. challenged the ban. The court struck down the delegation because the statute contained no intelligible principle guiding the prohibition.
Congress directed the EPA to set ambient air quality standards requisite to protect public health. The EPA issued strict ozone limits. American Trucking Associations challenged the standards. The court upheld the delegation because the public-health directive supplied an intelligible principle.
Congress must articulate a general policy or standard that guides the agency's discretion. Courts accept broad formulations such as advancing modern industry or protecting public health. The standard need not prescribe every detail.
No. The test requires only a guiding policy rather than granular rules. Broad objectives tied to a specific regulatory subject have repeatedly been upheld.
A statute fails when it leaves the agency free to make fundamental policy choices without any legislative direction. Complete absence of a guiding standard violates separation of powers.
Procedural steps such as hearings or reports help but do not substitute for a substantive policy standard. The statute must still direct the agency toward a defined goal.
…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,…