The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Tom Merrill (Columbia) Guest-Blogging on West Virginia v. EPA
I'm delighted to report that Prof. Tom Merrill, of Columbia Law School, will be guest-blogging this week on West Virginia v. EPA, potentially one of the most important regulatory decisions by the Supreme Court in years.
In West Virginia, the Court holds that administrative agencies lack authority to render decisions of major economic and political significance unless Congress has made a clear statement authorizing them to do so. Prof. Merrill will discuss whether this was an advisory opinion; whether it was necessary for the Court to create a major questions doctrine given statutory limits on EPA's authority; how the major questions doctrine compares to the venerable Chevron doctrine; whether the major questions doctrine will prove to be workable; and whether a clear statement rule is needed, given that reviewing courts could simply determine, as a matter of independent judgment, whether Congress has delegated authority to the agency to decide the question at issue.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The data are in. Clean air is the cause of global warming. Thank the lawyer quacks at the EPA for today's high temps.
No one is addressing the plain language of Article I Section 1. All legislative powers are to go to the Congress. All judicial review and all executive regulation must be approved by Congress or be void.
This subject is covered in 600 pages, here:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=is+administrative+law+unlawful&crid=E3WUX958IYOW&sprefix=is+administrative+%2Caps%2C82&ref=nb_sb_ss_mission-aware-v1_1_13&tag=reasonmagazinea-20
Here is the denier rebuttal. They cannot read the plain English of the constitution.
https://adlaw.jotwell.com/is-administrative-law-unlawful-no/
Where is my Queenie. Franky. You stay away from her. She is my girl.
Let us all pray, Queenie please, do not get the monkey.
Naturally, the rebuttal is by an indoctrinator at Harvard Law School, the font of big government tyranny and of kowtowing to the Chinese Commie Party.
If he wants executive regulation, let him enact an amendment.
From the teeth grinding in Washington they seem to think it's more than just "advisory".
Another week, another clinger.
Rev. I pray everyday, that you do not get the monkey.
Another week, another empty, non-substantive comment by RAK.
You probably dislike the substance of my comments.
Less likely, you may be too ignorant or stupid to apprehend the substance of my comments.
You are a bigoted, alienated culture war loser.
I am content.
Now now -- enough of that "zero is a number" crap.
You once again prove my point.
Bored. Do you know which Top Tier law school the Rev attended. I aspire to write at his level of legal analysis, and may apply. If I do, I would ask Eugene for a letter of recommendation.
Reverend Arthur/Jerry Sandusky has gone
10 YEARS, 1 MONTH, 15 DAYS
without buggering any young men, (who knows, sure "The Reverend" went to Mass today)
*as far as we know, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Frank
Kagan made a big deal in her dissent that the "major question doctrine" was made up.
I will concur that the term/phrase "major question doctrine " was recently made up. Though, all it is , is a new term / phrase for an age old constitutional principle which is that the executive branch can not create law or impose regulations without being given the statutory authority which can only come from a law passed by Congress.
That principle is not what the major questions doctrine means.
Noscitur a sociis
July.24.2022 at 5:44 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Though, all it is , is a new term / phrase for an age old constitutional principle which is that the executive branch can not create law or impose regulations without being given the statutory authority which can only come from a law passed by Congress.
That principle is not what the major questions doctrine means.
Cutting through all the chaf - that is exactly what it means
Congress make law, not the executive branch
Under the "major powers doctrine", the Congress can delegate a "major power" to an executive agency, but that delegation must be clear and specific, as opposed to being inferred from general provisions in a statute.
Cutting through the chaff - that is pretty much what I said , along with everyone else - with the exception of Kagan and the other two dissenters
though I will add, kagan dissented primarily based on her preferred policy - though that preferred policy is based on dubious science
The dissent agrees with the principle you're stating. The disagreement is whether or not Congress actually granted the power that the EPA used here.
Noscitur a sociis
July.24.2022 at 10:57 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"The dissent agrees with the principle you're stating. The disagreement is whether or not Congress actually granted the power that the EPA used here."
The majority based its opinion on article 1, The dissent started with its preferred policy result to claim that the EPA had complete power to legislate
“All words are made up”—Thor Odinson
Sleepy/Somnolent/Demented/Infectious/Quadruple Vaccinated Joe, needs to get a T-Shirt
"I went to Saudi Arabia begging for Oil, and all I got was Covid!!!!!!!!"
Frank
I’ll leave all of the legal comma parsing to the lawyers. From a practical and fairness standpoint it was the right decision. I had to deal with several agencies over the years and the complexity of their rules, along with the frequency with which they changed them, made compliance very difficult.
Changing the rules over time, particularly after an administration change, in and of itself proves that they’re not simply interpreting the orders of congress, unless you think that a congress 20 years gone can change its mind.
A great current example is the jihad of the FDA to completely wipe out the vaping industry. You can see the stories on main Reason. This was never the intent of congress - but it’s obviously the intent of the current administration.
The agencies have gone far beyond their mandate and this ruling is correct, whatever language you want to parse to get to it.
The problem is that the decision doesn't to much parsing; it's basically as ipse dixit as your 'agencies have gone too far' comment.
It's an uncabined subjective doctrine, based on prudential reasoning rather than Constitutional reasoning.
It's as much of a 'buckle up, here comes the conservative judicial realism' as Alito's 'everything you know is wrong, here is the new normal and no I won't engage with previous reasoning' decision in Dobbs.
Even a poorly defined nudge back in the other direction is an improvement over where we had gotten ourselves to. A congress unwilling to do its job for more than a decade has left a gap that overeager agencies and presidents were happy to try to fill, constitution be damned.
Focusing on the substance and ignoring the principle will get you every time.
Is Professor Merrill willing to concede necessity for national policy on climate? If so, then I hope any suggestions he makes take account of the political dynamic which now rules congress—no possibility of any action beneficial to the nation unless one party controls government and can take full credit for itself.
Of course that's always been the excuse for dictatorships, whether socialist, fascist, oligarchist, bureaucratic, or technocratic; an intractable problem that needs just a few chosen to deal with it, because democratic decision making is too messy.
But of course something as dire as we are told climate change is will require buy in from the great mass of the people be successful, unless we start opening camps to re-educate them to manufacture that buy in.
Probably about time for you to repost your The People are Sovereign screed.
There is no necessity for national policy on climate. Hopefully he won’t concede it. Even if there was it’s not worth destroying our system of government over it.
I think he'd be willing to concede, as would we all, that if something were really a "necessity" from the people's point of view, that they'd elect representatives to do it.
Since the people haven't elected representatives willing to pass a national policy on climate, it's not a "necessity" from the people's point of view.
Good idea. Start your own blog and see how it works out.
Whatever you think of the position you ascribe to the various authors, the comments are always wide open and free wheeling.
Rhoid. Another great comment, bruh. I would love to read your rebuttal.
I'm not sure what causes you to characterize Merrill in that fashion, but do you think Prof. Volokh is typically recruiting his guest columnists, or do you think they typically approach him? (Often they've just published something and they're trying to market it.)
I got a great idea, why don't you wait to see what Prof. Merrill has to say before you characterize the content?
I realize he's got 2 strikes against him coming from a right wing hive like Columbia, but lets hear him out rather than prematurely calling that third strike.
Are you unable to see Ilya Somin's posts?
"Unlike yourself I’d bet EV cares more about at least the appearance of being consistent with his avowed principles."
Funny how you feel free to know what others think.
Per Favore, Non Mi Rompere i Coglion. Grazie!
Queenie. Please, do not get the monkey. Please, be careful out there.
This issue here has very little to do with the nondelegation principle.
The principle behind non-delegation and the related "major powers doctrine" is that, in a democratic society, individuals who make decisions, particularly big decisions, affecting the lives of the people should be accountable to the people. The people can fire congressmen and Presidents who, in their opinion, have made bad decisions. They cannot fire administrative agency bureaucrats.
Article I:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Seems if they could delegate that power then the Constitution would say so. And Section 7 gives the process for bills to become law, it doesn't say anything about just publishing something in the Federal Register.
Queenie. Great point, bruh. It has to do with the separation of powers.
From high school:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
Queen - let us know where in Article 2 of the US constitution grants the executive branch the power to make law
Only very indirectly, even absent Civil Service protections which make it nigh impossible to fire a bureaucrat. Not only does delegation allow elected legislators to evade accountability, it also allows them to evade responsibility by passing along their duties to others, another negative aspect of the rise of the bloated Administrative State.
Queen almathea
July.24.2022 at 7:02 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"Sure they can, they can through their executive and legislative representatives."
Queen - curious if you have ever read the US constitution - you are commenting on a legal blog - and your comment indicates you never read Article 1 , section 1
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers are to go to the Congress.
They would seem, at the very least, cousins. The non delegation principle says that Congress can't tell administrative agencies, "Go do whatever you want"; if Congress wants a regulation it needs to be specific enough in its legislation that the regulatory agency can be said to be gap filling rather than making up its own preferences. The major questions doctrine says that if Congress wants to tell administrative agencies to do something, it has to be specific enough that it actually wants them to regulate that area.
This happens repeatedly. The Supreme Court says the EPA, CDC, or whichever agency lacks the power to do something it wants to do.
Congressmen loudly condemn the Supreme Court for the decision. But none of these dummies ever seem to say, "Well, I guess we better pass a law giving the agency to authority to do that."
Because that would take effort. That would require making your case why such a law would be a good idea. That involves political risk. But why should Congress bother to actually legislate? They're too busy grandstanding on TV and social media, not to mention campaigning.
David,
That's actually an interesting question. I don't recall Eugene every speaking generally about how he found/finds any particular guest contributor. But I suspect that you are correct . . . most or all probably contact him and offer their services (to increase book sales? to merely reach a wider audience? to get more helpful info into the public sphere?).
If Eugene is soliciting contributors; I agree that the website might be well-served by having some left-of-centre guest contributors. The site is years removed from being libertarian, IMO, and is now firmly in the "conservative, with none-to-mild-to-strong libertarian leanings" camp. But if he's merely responding to potential contributors coming to him; I'm surprised that more (any?) liberals are not asking to come here for a week or two. Even if only to reach a market segment or portion of the voting public that the usual liberal sites don't reach in an optimal way or amount.
Nice observation, David. A phenomenon I actually had never thought about re the VC.
The nondelegation doctrine is a substantive limit on what Congress can authorize an executive agency to do.
The major questions doctrine is a tool to determine whether a statute is a Congrssional authorization for an agency to act in a certain way.
In this case, the Supreme Court used a major questions analysis to conclude that the statute didn't give the EPA the power to implement the regulatory scheme it wanted to. It did not conclude that Congress lacked the power to delegate the authority to the EPA if it wanted to.
This blog has a huge libertarian component.
Faux libertarian.
They are twin evils. Congress creates bureaucracies and then leaves them to their own devices, running the risk that they turn into out-of-control monsters or else into rudderless, useless entities.
Many of these agencies are governed by statutes that haven't been substantially amended in 60+ years. It is not too much to ask Congress to review these occasionally, expanding powers to account for changing times or (Heaven forbid) contracting or even abolishing agencies that have outlived their usefulness.
Scholarly opinions differ on the subject.
Is Administrative Law Unlawful?
"With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent."
Queen almathea
July.24.2022 at 7:55 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
“We highlight one distinction in particular: whereas the nondelegation doctrine is only implicit in the U.S. Constitution, it is explicit in most state constitutions. As Gary Lawson has observed, “there is nothing in the [U.S.] Constitution that specifically states, in precise terms, that no other actor may exercise legislative power or that Congress may not authorize other actors to exercise legislative power.”
Queen - Are you being serious with that Statement
Both you and the "scholarly article " (that is the article that is pretending to be "scholarly) - are ignoring Article 1, Section 1 of the US constitution. Its not that hard to read and understand - you might try it someday.