PLF fights to protect the Separation of Powers
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” once wrote that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” To prevent just such an accumulation, the Framers built the Separation of Powers into our constitutional order. The most important protection of our liberty, the Separation of Powers prohibits any branch of the federal government from re-delegating (giving away) its unique constitutional powers to another branch, institution, or individual.
In the opening lines of the Constitution, “We the People” vested “All legislative Powers” in Congress. However, for the last 83 years, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress almost unlimited latitude to re-delegate its legislative power and democratic responsibility to executive agencies, to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives from the products we buy to the food we eat with effectively no legislative guidance. Since 1935 the Court has struck down only a single statute for violating this “non-delegation doctrine.”
Renewed intellectual criticism of judicial non-policing of the non-delegation doctrine, and the alarming rise of the unconstitutional administrative state, recently led the Court to grant review of a case concerning a particulatly extreme statutory delegation.
At issue in Gundy v. United States is a constitutionally impermissible re-delegation of legislative power from Congress to the Attorney General, under which the Attorney General is empowered to decide, without the slightest guiding “intelligible principle” as required by previous case law, the retroactive applicability of a criminal statute. The Court’s acceptance of Gundy, solely on the Separation of Powers issue, signals a clear willingness to reconsider this essential doctrine.
Given PLF’s long term goal of reining in the power of the administrative state and our experience with dozens of overbroad regulatory laws, today we filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court in which we lent our extensive litigation and public policy expertise to this important question.
Our brief argues not only that the current intelligible principle standard for governing congressional re-delegations of its legislative power lacks a basis in the text and original meaning of the Constitution, but that it frustrates the democratic accountability of Congress, and leads to the violation of individual rights. Instead of reluctance over drawing the line between impermissible executive lawmaking and permissible discretion, we contend that the Court is fully capable of drawing such a line, and already has for many years in an similar doctrine with deep roots in the common law.
It is our sincere hope that the Court will decide not only to strike down the unconstitutional re-delegation at issue in Gundy, but will breathe new life into the Separation of Powers upon which so much of our liberty depends.
learn more about
Gundy v. United States
The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, but not to delegate that power to the Executive Branch. Doing so allows unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make rules in violation of the Non-Delegation doctrine. In Gundy, the U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Congress violated the Non-Delegation doctrine by empowering the Attorney General to unilaterally make law. PLF’s supporting brief urges the Court to revive the Non-Delegation doctrine, so Congress can no longer dodge accountability by sloughing off its lawmaking responsibilities.Read more
What to read next
The Forest Service pulled a bait-and-switch on a decades-old land deal. Here’s how the owners are fighting back.
When the government negotiates for a limited-access easement across your property, it cannot turn around later and decide it has an unlimited right to cross your property. Wil Wilkins and … ›
This morning, PLF filed an Amicus Letter urging the Supreme Court of California to grant review of the court of appeal’s decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control … ›