__ U.S. __, 17-8830, Paul v. United States

Docket Nº:17-8830
Citation:__ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 342
Party Name:Ronald W. PAUL v. UNITED STATES
Judge Panel:Statement of Justice KAVANAUGH respecting the denial of certiorari.
Case Date:November 25, 2019
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page __

__ U.S. __

140 S.Ct. 342

Ronald W. PAUL

v.

UNITED STATES

No. 17-8830

United States Supreme Court

November 25, 2019

Case below, 718 Fed.Appx. 360.

OPINION

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice KAVANAUGH respecting the denial of certiorari.

I agree with the denial of certiorari because this case ultimately raises the same statutory interpretation issue that the Court resolved last Term in Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 2116, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (2019). I write separately because Justice GORSUCH’s scholarly analysis of the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine in his Gundy dissent may warrant further consideration in future cases. Justice GORSUCH’s opinion built on views expressed by then-Justice Rehnquist some 40 years ago in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 685-686, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). In that case, Justice Rehnquist opined that major national policy decisions must be made by Congress and the President in the legislative process, not delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch.

In the wake of Justice Rehnquist’s opinion, the Court has not adopted a nondelegation principle for major questions. But the Court has applied a closely related statutory interpretation doctrine: In order for an executive or independent agency to exercise regulatory authority over a major policy question of great economic and political importance, Congress must either: (i) expressly and specifically decide the major policy question itself and delegate to the agency the authority to regulate and enforce; or (ii) expressly and specifically delegate to the agency the authority both to decide the major policy question and to regulate and enforce. See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP