Also known as: intelligible standards · intelligible principle
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A guiding principle that Congress must supply when delegating rulemaking or regulatory authority to executive agencies or other branches. The principle must be sufficiently clear to permit courts to determine whether the agency has stayed within the bounds set by statute. Without such a standard the delegation would transfer core legislative power in violation of separation of powers.
Congress created the Manufacturing Standards Board and directed it to issue rules advancing modern industry. The Board adopted production quotas and workplace standards for factories nationwide. A family-owned plant challenged the delegation as lacking any guiding standard. The court invalidated the statute because the directive to advance modern industry failed to supply an intelligible standard that channeled the Board's discretion.
Congress authorized the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards requisite to protect public health. Industry groups argued the statute gave the agency unguided power. The court rejected the challenge because the health-protection directive provided an intelligible standard that cabined the agency's discretion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Congress authorized the President to prohibit interstate shipment of hot oil when production exceeded state quotas. The President banned all shipments from certain fields without further statutory direction. Producers challenged the action as an invalid delegation. The court invalidated the provision because the statute supplied no intelligible standard to guide the prohibition.
Congress directed the Attorney General to decide how the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would apply to pre-enactment offenders. The Attorney General issued comprehensive registration rules. Offenders claimed the delegation lacked an intelligible standard. The court sustained the statute because the directive to apply the Act to prior offenders supplied a guiding principle.
Congress authorized the Attorney General to temporarily schedule substances posing imminent hazards. The Attorney General scheduled a new synthetic drug. Importers challenged the delegation as standardless. The court upheld the provision because the imminent-hazard criterion furnished an intelligible standard limiting the Attorney General's discretion.
A state statute criminalized publication that exposed any race or class to contempt. A publisher was convicted for distributing a pamphlet attacking Black residents. The publisher argued the statute delegated legislative power without an intelligible standard. The court sustained the law because the prohibition on exposing groups to contempt supplied a sufficiently clear standard.
Congress must articulate an intelligible standard that guides the agency's exercise of discretion. Courts have upheld very general formulations such as advancing modern industry or protecting public health. The standard need not be detailed or quantitative.
Supporting sources
Yes. A directive to protect and enhance the nation's natural environment has been treated as an intelligible standard because it states an overarching policy goal and limits the agency to environmental regulation. Courts do not require more specific criteria.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the intelligible standard guides the agency's discretion. The standard itself need not specify penalties. Congress may authorize the agency to define violations so long as the guiding principle remains in place.
Supporting sources
The delegation may be invalid. If the statute supplies no methodology or boundaries for balancing cost, reliability, and environmental goals, courts may conclude that Congress failed to provide an intelligible standard and transferred core legislative power.
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,…