A judicial doctrine favored by conservatives could stymie Trump

The beginning of the second Trump presidency has been marked by the unilateral use of executive orders to restructure the federal government and change policy. These actions have been met with near silence from a Republican Congress.

Partisanship, narrow majorities and personal loyalty to Trump may all explain this. Some see Congress as ceding so much power that it has abdicated its constitutional duties to provide checks and balances and the separation of powers. This ceding of power — either expressly by legislation or implicitly by inaction — could create a constitutional dilemma, leaving some Americans hoping that the judiciary will serve as a check on the administration.

The federal courts have already stayed many Trump initiatives. Among the tools that the judiciary may turn to is a revitalization of the “non-delegation doctrine,” which states that “Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations.”

The doctrine is rooted in Article I, Section One of the Constitution, which vests the legislative power in the House and Senate. Making laws, along with functions such as appropriating money, are inherently legislative functions that Congress may not give away to another branch of government or to a private entity.

The constitutional significance of the non-delegation doctrine emerged during the early part of the 20th century with the New Deal and the rise of the regulatory state. As Congress created regulatory agencies — such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission — it delegated to them broad authority to determine what is a safe drug, securities fraud or unfair competition. In effect, it gave these agencies broad authority to issue administrative rules that carried the force of law.

In 1928, the Supreme Court drew a limit on that delegation in J.W. Hampton v. United States. It held that delegation was permissible so long as there was an “intelligible” limit to the discretion that the administrative agency employed. Congress could not pass a law giving executive branch entities, including the president, unlimited discretion to make law or policy. For example, it could not adopt a law that said, “Congress is transferring its lawmaking power to the executive branch.”

The most famous case invoking the non-delegation doctrine was 1935's Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an act that delegated to private groups via the executive branch the authority to make rules of fair business competition. Here the non-delegation doctrine was used to strike down parts of what was referred to as the First New Deal regulations.

Yet since Schechter, the Supreme Court has never again used non-delegation to strike down legislation. Some speculate that perhaps Congress has learned its lesson and avoided violating the intelligible principle, whereas others argue that the court has simply abandoned it.

In cases such as Mistretta v. United States, Whitman v. American Trucking Association and United States v. Mead, the court saw congressional delegation of power as pushing the limits of the non-delegation doctrine but not crossing it. Even in Trump v. Hawaii, wherein Trump issued the so-called “Muslim travel ban,” the court debated whether the president had crossed the line, but ultimately ruled that he had not.

Yet in 2019’s Gundy v. United States, four of the justices (Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito) argued for a strengthening and rethinking of the non-delegation doctrine because of their concern that Congress has ceded too much authority to administrative and executive agencies. Conservatives have long called for the doctrine to be given a new life. This renewed support for the delegation doctrine and limits on administrative agency discretion is also evident in the recent Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, which overturned Chevron deference.

As the battle over the constitutionality of Trump’s actions turn to the courts, it would not be a surprise if a conservative Supreme Court or lower federal court judges look to the non-delegation doctrine as a tool to check executive branch authority.

David Schultz is a Distinguished University Professor and the Winston Folkers Endowed Distinguished Faculty Chair in political science at Hamline University.

Topics

The unexpected knock-on effect of Trump's minerals 'deal of the century'

The president once derided attempts to develop new green technology as a "green new scam" - but his deal could help boost the US's potential in the sector
BBC News - Mar. 14
The Trump Doctrine: The World Is a Zero-Sum Game

Whoever pays the most into the pot is the loser. Whoever gets the most is the winner.
The New York Times - Mar. 7
Carney plays down prospect of major confrontation between Canada and US

New Canadian prime minister cites Nato’s mutual defence doctrine during visit to London
Financial Times - 3d
Trump Tariffs Leave No Country Room for Exemptions, U.S. Tells Canada

In talks aimed at finding common ground on tariffs, Canadian officials were told April 2 will be a crucial day in setting the Trump tariff doctrine, and any relief could come later.
The New York Times - 6d
Paulson Adebo contract: Details on free agency deal the New Orleans Saints could not match

Details have emerged on Paulson Adebo's Giants contract. Here's the scoop on a deal the Saints could not match in free agency.
Yahoo Sports - 6d
Trump Targeting Law Firms Raises Constitutional Concerns

The way Trump targeted the firms could go against of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
Inc. - Mar. 9
Netanyahu will never accept peace. Where will his perpetual war lead next? | Simon Tisdall

Israel, backed by a capricious Donald Trump, never intended to honour the ceasefire. These airstrikes mark a dire new phase in the conflict. The first and last rule of Benjamin Netanyahu’s doctrine ...
The Guardian - 2d
Trump doesn't rule out recession, rising inflation

In an interview with Fox News, President Trump acknowledged inflation could continue to rise and wouldn't say whether or not he thinks the U.S. economy could fall into a recession. Nikole Killion ...
CBS News - Mar. 9
Some of the WNBA's rising stars have shined during Unrivaled's inaugural season

Los Angeles Sparks guard Rae Burrell could name a list of improvements she's made in her game while playing at Unrivaled during the WNBA offseason. The new 3-on-3 women's basketball league has ...
Yahoo Sports - 3d