The Supreme Court has recently signaled its interest in developing a new nondelegation test, one that would have courts more aggressively police Congress’s delegations of power to agencies. This could represent a death knell for significant climate action. The technical and scientific complexity of climate change mean that it is a problem uniquely suited to redress by expert agencies. If Congress is not permitted to delegate authority to agencies to address climate change, then it will be difficult for meaningful action against climate change to be taken at the federal level. With this threat in mind, this Article evaluates the emerging basis for the Court’s new nondelegation test: Chevron. The Court has hinted that it will look to two rules developed under Chevron to guide its revived nondelegation doctrine: the major questions doctrine and the jurisdictional exception that Chief Justice Roberts laid out in City of Arlington. By grounding the long-extinct nondelegation doctrine in the robust body of Chevron jurisprudence, the Court could give the nondelegation doctrine a legitimacy and specificity that a freeform version would lack. This Article argues, however, that transplanting the rules of Chevron to the nondelegation context would be doctrinally and logically incoherent. The Article first explains how the Court’s Chevron jurisprudence is based on a particular legal fiction about congressional delegation of authority to agencies. The Court has used this legal fiction to derive limiting principles for the application of Chevron deference, such as the major question doctrine and the City of Arlington jurisdictional exception. Importantly, Chevron’s limiting principles and the legal fiction underlying them are based on a principle of legislative supremacy, i.e., the understanding that Congress is supreme in the realm of policymaking, and thus courts’ role in interpreting statutes is to be agents of Congress. By contrast, the nondelegation doctrine as it is envisioned by the current Court relies on a notion of judicial supremacy: It imagines that courts have the final say as to what is acceptable policymaking, regardless of Congress’s intentions. Transferring Chevron to the nondelegation context would therefore amount to a categorical error. As a result, the Article concludes that, given the incompatible institutional framework underlying Chevron’s rules, the Court must look elsewhere for inspiration and support for its new nondelegation test.
Citation
Alison Gocke, Chevron’s Next Chapter: A Fig Leaf for the Nondelegation Doctrine, 55 UC Davis Law Review, 955–1017 (2021).
More in This Category
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health , exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
More
Now that the Supreme Court has revoked the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy, we must reckon with the risks that our surveillance economy...
More
We introduce the first ideology measure covering every non-Supreme-Court Article III judge on a single scale. The dataset comprises dynamic, interval...
More
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
More
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
More
Over the past twenty-five years, Congress has enacted several major reforms for employer-sponsored retirement plans and individual retirement accounts...
More
Ian Ayres
We propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to balance the need to hold politicians accountable for their crimes, and the need...
More
There is one group that the court does not put into an identity straitjacket—those claiming religious exemptions.
More
The 1968 Fair Housing Act required local government recipients of federal money to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH...
More
The demise of Roe v. Wade has raised a host of religious liberty questions that were submerged prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v...
More
Michael S. Knoll
Law students frequently find the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine confusing. That is no surprise given the sharp disagreement...
More
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
More
Matthew Waxman
Congress may want to prevent nuclear command and control from going fully autonomous. Would such a law be constitutional?
More
On Thursday, the Supreme Court subtly transformed the rights of religious workers in America. Under the guise of “clarifying” a nearly 50-year-old...
More
In a 6-3 ruling on Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race in college admissions at Harvard and the University of...
More
Looking for a federal law to be declared unconstitutional? Religion may well be your best bet -- and that's true regardless of how "real" your...
More
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
More
When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a...
More