| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | EPA is tasked with setting air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter that are "requisite to protect the public health" and have "an adequate margin of safety." They are accused of doing cost-benefit analysis in setting the levels. |
| Posture: | Ct. App says the statute doesn't violate non-delegation. |
| Issue: | Does the clean air act delegate legislative power to the EPA?
May the EPA consider the costs of implementation in setting standards? |
| Holding: | No, and no. |
| Rule: | Economic considerations may play no part in setting air quality standards (basically the exclusio rule). Also, as long as congress lays down an intelligible principle by which to govern decisions, there's no delegation of legislative authority. |
| Reasoning: | With respect to economic considerations, we can't assume that congress
is trying to smuggle in the whole of cost-benefit analysis
obliquely, especially since they explicitly mention it in other
legislation.
With respect to non-delegation, this is no more vague than other delegation we've allowed. We rarely second-guess congress regarding the degree of judgment that can be left to those executing the law. |
| Dicta: | Thomas (concurring): just because a principle is intelligible doens't
mean it's constitional. The constitution never says anything
about "intelligible principles."
Stevens (concurring): it would be better just to admit that agency rulemaking is a kind of legislative power. Breyer (concurring): cost-benefit analysis precludes technology- forcing legislation. That's why we wouldn't want such a thing. |