Also known as: intelligible principle standard · intelligible principle · intelligible principles · nondelegation doctrine · non-delegation standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement that Congress must articulate a guiding policy or standard when delegating regulatory authority to executive agencies or officers. The principle ensures that the agency’s discretion remains bounded by legislative direction rather than amounting to an abdication of legislative power.
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 for all factories. Imperial Motors challenged the rules, arguing the statute left the Board without any guiding standard. The court struck down the delegation because the statute supplied no intelligible principle directing the Board’s discretion.
Congress authorized the Tariff Commission to adjust import duties on certain goods to equalize production costs between domestic and foreign manufacturers. The Commission raised duties on steel imports after studying cost data. Integrity Partners, an importer, sued claiming the statute gave the Commission unchecked power. The court sustained the delegation because the equalization directive channeled the Commission’s authority.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Congress empowered the Petroleum Board to prohibit interstate shipment of oil produced in excess of state quotas. The Board banned shipments from several wells after receiving production reports. Panama Refining challenged the ban, asserting the statute contained no policy to limit the Board’s choices. The court struck down the delegation because the statute supplied no intelligible principle directing the Board’s discretion.
Congress directed the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards requisite to protect public health. The EPA issued stringent limits on ozone and particulate matter. American Trucking Associations sued, contending the statute left the agency free to choose any level it wished. The court upheld the delegation because the public-health directive provided an intelligible principle guiding the EPA’s standard-setting.
Congress authorized the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt rules necessary and appropriate for fishery conservation. The Service set annual catch limits for several species. Loper Bright Enterprises challenged the limits, arguing the statute delegated legislative power without sufficient guidance. The court examined whether the conservation directive supplied an intelligible principle that constrained the agency’s rulemaking.
Congress directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue regulations necessary to protect endangered species. The Service adopted rules requiring consultation on federal actions affecting distant habitats. Defenders of Wildlife sued to enforce broader consultation. The court assessed whether the statutory goal of species protection supplied an intelligible principle that bounded the Service’s discretion.
Congress must articulate a guiding policy or standard that channels agency discretion. The standard need not be detailed or specific. A broad objective such as protecting public health or advancing modern industry has been held sufficient when tied to defined regulatory subjects.
Supporting sources
No. The standard tolerates broad policy directives that leave implementation details to the agency. Courts have upheld delegations framed in terms of public interest, fair competition, or environmental protection without quantitative formulas.
Supporting sources
A statute fails when it supplies no policy at all and leaves the agency free to pursue any objective it chooses. Complete absence of a guiding principle allows the agency to exercise core legislative power, violating separation of powers.
Supporting sources
Procedural steps alone do not substitute for a substantive intelligible principle. Hearings and reporting obligations help ensure transparency but cannot supply the missing policy boundary on agency discretion.
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,…