Article I vests "All legislative Powers herein granted" in Congress. Modern government runs largely on statutes that leave the details to agencies, which you met in Administrative Law Basics. If only Congress may legislate, how much may it hand to others? The nondelegation doctrine answers that Congress may delegate the power to fill in details, but not its legislative power itself.
Why it works
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) | A delegation is valid if Congress lays down an "intelligible principle" to guide the delegate (tariff adjustments upheld). |
| Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) | Struck down: a provision of the National Industrial Recovery Act gave the President power over oil shipments with no standard. |
| Schechter Poultry (1935) | Struck down: NIRA codes of "fair competition" written largely by industry groups. |
| Mistretta v. United States (1989), 8 to 1 | Upheld the Sentencing Commission, which writes federal sentencing guidelines; Justice Scalia dissented. |
| Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001), 9 to 0 | Upheld the Clean Air Act's command to set air standards "requisite to protect the public health" (Justice Scalia). |
| Gundy v. United States (2019) | Upheld a delegation in a sex-offender registration law; Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, dissented and urged a stricter test. |
Key idea
Worked example: Two ways to limit delegation
- Nondelegation: the statute itself is unconstitutional because it gives away legislative power with no intelligible principle. This argument almost always fails.
- Major questions: the statute is valid, but it should not be read to cover a decision of such economic and political significance without clear words from Congress, as in Brown & Williamson.
- The first strikes down a law; the second reads a law narrowly.
Answer: The nondelegation argument attacks the statute; the major questions argument attacks the agency's reading of it.
Worked example: Applying the intelligible principle test
- The statute names the goal (protecting employee health) and the limit (feasibility).
- Courts have upheld far vaguer standards ("public interest," "fair and equitable," "requisite to protect the public health").
- Under current doctrine, this easily passes.
Answer: Yes. Whether the test should be stricter is the live debate, not the result here.
Common mistake
Supporters of the major questions doctrine say it keeps the biggest policy choices with elected legislators; critics say it lets judges decide which questions are "major" and override the words Congress chose. Compare agency deference.