Also known as: legislative powers · legislative authority · law-making power
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The authority to enact, amend, and repeal laws. Under the Constitution this authority is vested exclusively in Congress, consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives, and may not be exercised by the executive or judicial branches or delegated in ways that bypass bicameralism and presentment.
Lance Lee, owner of Lakewood Manufacturing, receives notice that a new federal statute sets nationwide production benchmarks for electronic components used in military equipment. The statute was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Lakewood Manufacturing must comply or face penalties, confirming that only Congress holds the power to impose such binding nationwide rules.
Lena Lawson operates Liberty Trust, which holds an executive branch contract subject to oversight. The House of Representatives alone passes a resolution canceling the contract without Senate approval or presentment to the President. Liberty Trust continues operations under the original terms because the one-house action cannot alter legal relations outside the legislative branch.
Luna Lang directs Lotus Pharmaceuticals, which receives federal contracts tied to interstate commerce regulation. Congress charters a new corporation to produce standardized medical supplies for defense and commerce purposes. Lotus Pharmaceuticals must follow the corporation's uniform standards because the charter implements enumerated powers through an appropriate means.
Liam Larson, a creditor of a failed bank, appears before the Federal Banking Restructuring Tribunal created by Congress. The tribunal, staffed by fixed-term judges, resolves both supervisory and investor claims arising under the bank resolution statute. Larsen's claim proceeds to a binding decision even though the judges lack life tenure.
Lola Langley runs Lone Peak Energy, a coal-fired plant facing new nationwide emission limits. The Environmental Protection Agency adopts the limits under a broad statutory directive without further congressional specification of exact standards. Lone Peak Energy challenges the rule as an exercise of legislative power that must originate in Congress.
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule identified three building blocks as the best system of emission reduction, including generation shifting from coal-fired plants to natural gas plants and from both to renewable sources. EPA projected that the rule would reduce coal's share of national electricity generation from 38% in 2014 to 27% by 2030, impose billions in compliance costs, raise electricity prices, retire dozens of coal plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs. The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016. After a change in presidential administrations, EPA in 2019 repealed the Clean Power Plan, concluding that generation shifting exceeded its statutory authority, and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which relied solely on heat rate improvements at individual plants. Dozens of parties, including twenty-seven States, and private parties challenged the repeal and the ACE rule in the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that EPA's repeal rested on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act and vacated both the repeal and the ACE rule. Following another change in administrations, EPA moved to partially stay the D.C. Circuit's mandate as to the Clean Power Plan while considering new rulemaking. The court granted the stay. Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC, The North American Coal Corporation, and several States then petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
View caseLaura Lewis leads Defenders of Wildlife in challenging an executive interpretation of a statute affecting habitat protections. The group alleges the interpretation alters legal obligations without bicameral passage. The claim is dismissed because the asserted injury is too generalized to support standing against the exercise of legislative power.
In 1973 Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to protect species of animals against threats to their continuing existence caused by man. In 1978 the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued a joint regulation interpreting section 7(a)(2) to require federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior on actions taken in foreign nations. In 1986 the Secretary promulgated a revised regulation that limited the consultation obligation to actions within the United States or on the high seas. Shortly after the 1986 regulation took effect, Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Secretary of the Interior. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the regulation was invalid as to its geographic scope and an injunction requiring the Secretary to promulgate a new regulation mandating consultation for foreign projects. The complaint alleged that the absence of consultation would increase the rate of extinction of endangered and threatened species. The complaint further alleged that some of the organizations' members observed these species both domestically and abroad. Respondents supported their allegations with affidavits from two members. Joyce Kelly stated that she had traveled to Egypt in 1986, observed the habitat of the endangered Nile crocodile, and intended to return. Kelly further stated that she would suffer harm from the United States role in the rehabilitation of the Aswan High Dam. Amy Skilbred stated that she had traveled to Sri Lanka in 1981, observed the habitat of endangered species including the Asian elephant and leopard at the site of the Mahaweli project funded by the Agency for International Development, and intended to return. Skilbred admitted she had no current plans to return because of a civil war. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. On remand the District Court denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment on standing. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on the merits and enjoined the Secretary from applying the regulation to foreign countries. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. The Clause supplies auxiliary authority to implement enumerated powers through appropriate means such as chartering corporations. It does not create freestanding substantive authority.
Supporting sources
No. Article I Section 1 vests all legislative power in Congress. When a statute leaves fundamental policy determinations such as exact limits and penalties to an agency without an intelligible principle, the agency action exceeds the legislative power.
Supporting sources
No. Any congressional action altering rights or duties outside the legislative branch must satisfy bicameralism and presentment. A one-house veto bypasses these requirements and is invalid.
Supporting sources
Yes. Congress may establish hybrid courts that perform administrative and judicial functions within a regulatory scheme. Such tribunals do not violate Article III even though their judges serve fixed terms.
Supporting sources
Generally no. An abstract institutional injury shared by all members is insufficient. Standing requires a concrete, particularized injury such as nullification of specific votes that directly changes a legislative outcome.
Supporting sources
…security. See id. , §97, at 49. Upon consenting to that order, men obtained civil liberty, or the freedom “to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.”…