What Can Public Administrators Learn From Whitman V. American Trucking Association

Powered by

Law Students: Don't know your Bloomberg Police login? Register here

CitationWhitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 121 South. Ct. 903, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 1952, 69 The statesL.W. 4136, 51 ERC (BNA) 2089, 31 ELR 20512, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1098, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 101 (U.S. February. 27, 2001)

Brief Fact Summary. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised ozone air quality standards.

Synopsis of Rule of Police force. "When conferring decision-making authority upon agencies, Congress must lay downward an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to adjust."

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The EPA may not construe the statute in a way that completely nullifies textually applicative provisions meant to limit its discretion.

View Total Point of Law

Facts. The EPA revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under the Section:109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Human action (CAA). The changes affected ozone. Several states challenged the new promulgated rules.

Result. "Whether Section:109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates legislative power to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Bureau (EPA)."

Held. No. The Supreme Court of the U.s.a. kickoff took into consideration the approach that the Constitution required. Based on Art. I of the Constitution, Congress has "all legislative powers," but the Constitution does not permit "delegation of those powers." Under previous decisions, therefore, "when Congress confers decision-making dominance upon agencies Congress must 'lay down by legislative human activity an intelligible principle to which the person or trunk authorized to [act] is directed to arrange.'" Strictly interpreting the linguistic communication of Section: 109(b)(1), the Supreme Courtroom read the statute as "requiring the EPA to set air quality standards at the level that is "requisite"–that is, non lower or higher than is necessary–to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety," and and then ended that the scope provided by Congress for the EPA was "well inside the outer limits of our non-delegation precedents." Concurrence. Justice Thomas concurred agreed with the Court, but notwithstanding expressed his concern that the "intelligible principle" doctrine serves to prevent all cessions of legislative power," and "that there are cases in which the principle is intelligible and nonetheless the significance of the delegated decision is simply too great for the decision to be called anything other than 'legislative.'"

Discussion. "Statutes demand non provide a determinate criterion for maxim how much of a regulated harm is too much to avert delegating legislative ability."

What Can Public Administrators Learn From Whitman V. American Trucking Association,

Source: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/administrative-law/administrative-law-keyed-to-strauss/agencies-and-the-structural-constitution/whitman-v-american-trucking-associations-inc/

Posted by: brewerrall1937.blogspot.com

Share this post