Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Five pillars of the administrative state: Legislative control
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Legislative control |
|
• Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Agency control • Executive control •Judicial control • Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Legislative control of agencies is one of five pillars used to understand Ballotpedia's coverage of the administrative state. It focuses on the balance of power between administrative agencies and the legislative branch.
Legislative control is a central concept in the debate over the nature and scope of the administrative state. It includes two primary components: (1) delegation and nondelegation and (2) legislative oversight (including legislative approval and veto requirements). Delegation and nondelegation refer to the extent to which a legislature grants authority to agencies and whether such delegation is constitutionally permissible. Legislative oversight refers to a legislature's ability to monitor, approve, or reject agency actions through mechanisms like the REINS Act, resolutions of disapproval, and legislative vetoes.
This article includes information about the following topics:
Key terms related to legislative control of the administrative state: This section contains important terms and definitions related to the legislative control of the administrative state.
Key laws and court cases related to legislative control of the administrative state: This section contains important laws and policies related to the legislative control of the administrative state.
- Court cases : This section contains significant court rulings related to the legislative control of the administrative state.
- Federal laws: This section contains key federal policies regarding legislative control of the administrative state.
- State laws: This section contains a 50-state survey of constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to see how each state approaches legislative control of the administrative state.
Recent legislation related to legislative control of the administrative state: This section tracks recent legislation by states about the legislative control of the administrative state.
Reform proposals related to legislative control of the administrative state: This section contains reform proposals related to the legislative control of the administrative state.
Major arguments about the legislative control of the administrative state: This section contains key arguments about the legislative control of the administrative state.
A timeline of legislative control: This section contains a timeline of significant events related to legislative control of the administrative state.
Scholarly work related to legislative control of administrative agencies: This section contains important legal doctrines related to legislative control of the administrative state.
This section features a list of significant terms related to legislative control of the administrative state.
- The nondelegation doctrine is a principle of constitutional and administrative law that limits the ability of lawmakers to delegate their legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities. In other words, lawmakers are limited in their ability to allow others to carry out laws through regulations, according to the doctrine.
- A legislative veto is a resolution by a legislative body that invalidates an executive branch action. The legislative veto is distinct from other types of legislative oversight of executive agencies because it does not need an executive signature to invalidate an agency action.
- The major questions doctrine, also known as the major rules doctrine, is the federal administrative law principle that the legislature must provide clear authorization to an agency before the agency can issue regulations on matters of economic or political significance.
- A joint resolution of disapproval is a measure, introduced and considered by Congress under the terms of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, that overturns a new federal agency rule and blocks the issuing agency from creating similar rules in the future without specific authorization.
- Statutory authority refers to the powers and duties assigned to a government official or agency through legislation. It is also known as a statutory grant of authority.
- REINS-style state laws are state laws that increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval or review of proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective. They are modeled after a federal legislative proposal called the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act).
This section features a list of significant laws and court cases related to legislative control of the administrative state and a 50-state survey related to legislative control.
This section contains selected court cases related to legislative control of the administrative state.
- J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States (1928) is a case decided on April 9, 1928, that concerned the president's exercise of a congressional delegation of authority to adjust tariff rates to protect American business. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, holding that Congress did not violate the Constitution because the authority and discretion delegated to the president was not legislative in nature.
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) is a case decided on May 27, 1935, in which the court invalidated Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) in violation of the nondelegation doctrine. Schechter—along with Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan— is one of two cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down legislation on nondelegation grounds. The case concerned Congress' delegation of legislative power to the executive branch to administer NIRA as well as the federal government's power to oversee intrastate commerce.
- INS v. Chadha (1983) is a case decided on June 23, 1983, in which the court held that the legislative veto was an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution's separation of powers. The case concerned a legislative veto provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that permitted one house of Congress to invalidate deportation rulings
- West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) is a case decided on June 30, 2022, in which the court formally invoked the major questions doctrine for the first time to limit the scope of powers granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Clean Air Act. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that Congress must provide clear direction to the EPA—rather than a broad delegation of power—in order for the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
For a full list of court cases related to the administrative state, click here.
This section contains important legal doctrines related to legislative control of the administrative state.
- The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) is a legislative proposal to increase congressional oversight of federal agency rulemaking. It would require legislative approval of major agency rules—defined as those with an annual financial impact of $100 million or more—before such regulations can take effect. The REINS Act seeks to amend the existing Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to nullify certain regulations after implementation. The REINS Act would shift this process, requiring preemptive approval by Congress for major rules.
- The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a law passed in 1996 that allows Congress to review and reject new federal regulations created by government agencies. Under the CRA, Congress has 60 working days after a rule has been submitted to Congress to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. If Congress approves the resolution and the president signs it, the targeted rule is nullified.
For a full list of laws related to the administrative state, click here.
A 50-state survey of the administrative state: Each of the 50 states has its own state-level Administrative Procedures Act and, of course, a constitution, several of which have stronger or weaker provisions for empowering or reining in the administrative state at the state level.
The following links contain components of the 50-state survey related to legislative control of the administrative state.
- Nondelegation: A 50-state survey
- Nondelegation doctrine: Permissible delegations of state legislative power
- Nondelegation doctrine: State formal rulemaking requirements
- Nondelegation doctrine: State limits on delegation of legislative power to agencies
- Nondelegation doctrine: States with APAs or constitutions that contain separation of powers provisions
- Nondelegation doctrine: States with regulatory review bodies
- See also: Administrative State Legislation Tracker
Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker identifies proposed and enacted bills in 2024 and 2025 related to the administrative state. This section tracks recent legislation concerning legislative control of the administrative state. To see all proposed legislation related to legislative control, click here.
Ballotpedia has identified five major legislative categories related to legislative control:
- Delegation: These bills concern the legislative delegation of authority to agencies to promulgate rules, or subsequent agency delegations of authority to sub-entities. These bills often limit what the legislature can delegate to agencies.
- Legislative review of agency actions: These bills propose legislative approval or review of agency regulations by a state legislative review committee, often before the rules can take effect. These bills may also create legislative committees tasked with reviewing other agency actions.
- Legislative review of executive actions: These bills propose a mechanism for the state legislature to review or rescind executive orders issued by the governor.
- REINS Act: These bills require state legislative approval of rules with associated costs above a certain monetary threshold.
- Sunset review: These bills create or modify sunset review procedures. Sunset procedures may require a regular schedule for legislative review of agency rules or they may cause a rule to automatically expire at a certain date unless approved by the state legislature to remain in effect.
This map shows all enacted legislation from 2024 or 2025 related to delegation, legislative review of agency actions, legislative review of executive actions, REINS-style state laws, and sunset review. To find out more about these bills, click here.[1]
Delegation legislation
This legislative approach addresses delegation. These bills concern the transfer of authority from legislatures to executive agencies, often defining the scope and limits of agency power. To see all proposed legislation related to delegation, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to delegation in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[2]
Legislative review of agency actions legislation
This legislative approach addresses legislative review of agency actions. These bills propose legislative approval or review of agency regulations by a state legislative review committee, often before the rules can take effect. These bills may also create legislative committees tasked with reviewing other agency actions. To see all proposed legislation related to legislative review of agency actions, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to legislative review of agency actions in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[3]
Legislative review of executive actions legislation
This legislative approach addresses legislative review of executive actions. These bills propose a mechanism for the state legislature to review or rescind executive orders issued by the governor. To see all proposed legislation related to legislative review of executive actions, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to legislative review of executive actions in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[4]
REINS-style state legislation
This legislation covers REINS-style state laws—policies that increase legislative oversight of administrative rulemaking by requiring legislative approval or review of proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before those regulations can take effect. These laws are modeled after the federal REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act). To see all proposed legislation related to legislative control, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to REINS-style state laws in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[5]
Sunset review legislation
This legislative approach addresses sunset review. Sunset review laws establish periodic evaluations of government agencies, programs, or regulations to determine whether they should be continued, modified, or terminated. To see all proposed legislation related to sunset review, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to sunset review in 2024 and 2025 (click on a bill for more information):[6]
Ballotpedia has identified five major types of reform categories related to legislative control:
- Legislative oversight and approval of rules: This reform category focuses on measures that would increase legislative involvement in the rulemaking process, ensuring that the legislature has a say in the creation and approval of regulations.
- Statutory authority and nondelegation doctrine: This reform category focuses on ensuring that legislative authority is clear and that agencies do not exceed their delegated powers.
- Regulatory analysis and economic impact: This reform category focuses on improving the analysis of regulations and ensuring that their economic impact is carefully considered.
- Legislative oversight of regulatory procedures: This reform category addresses how legislatures can assert authority over the transparency, justification, and continued validity of regulatory activity.
- State and local government legislative control: This category includes reforms that strengthen the role of state and local legislatures in overseeing regulatory activity and managing the influence of federal or executive actions on state and local governance.
Major arguments about the legislative control of the administrative state
This section contains key arguments about the legislative control of the administrative state.
Arguments in favor of the nondelegation doctrine, and against delegation
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Delegation violates the separation of powers
- Claim: the three governmental powers are distinct, and should be treated that way
- Claim: It was the goal of the framers to restrain governmental abuse and promote liberty through a robust nondelegation doctrine
2. Argument: Delegation undermines public accountability
3. Argument: Delegation is wrong because it is unconstitutional
- Claim: It is forbidden by the Vesting Clause
- Claim: Nondelegation is a universally recognized principle
4. Argument: Delegation violates social compact theory
Arguments against the nondelegation doctrine, and in favor of delegation
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: The Constitution does not explicitly forbid delegating legislative power
2. Argument: Rulemaking is not the same as lawmaking
3. Argument: U.S. Supreme Court has upheld virtually every statute challenged on nondelegation grounds
4. Argument: Agency law rules permit delegation
5. Argument: Increasing complexity of society requires Congress to delegate to do its job
- Claim: Agency rulemaking is required to achieve Americans’ goals
- Claim: The American people want an active federal government
- Claim: Delegation makes the administrative state constitutionally mandatory
- Claim: Congress cannot effectively issue major rules
7. Argument: Advocates of the nondelegation doctrine really just oppose expansive federal regulations
- Claim: Statutes giving open-ended authority provide for the exercise of executive or judicial power
- Claim: Legislative power refers to the authority to cast a vote in Congress and not the authority to make law
Line-drawing arguments concerning the nondelegation doctrine
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Defining legislative authority
- Claim: Legislative authority is the power to fashion legally binding rules
- Claim: Legislative authority is the power to vote in Congress
- Claim: Legislative authority is the power to make laws
2. Argument: Permissible vs. impermissible delegations
- Claim: Delegation lines drawn by the United States Supreme Court
- Claim: Delegation lines drawn by the U.S. Constitution
- Claim: Contingent legislation: identifying the line between implementation and regulation
- Claim: Rules vs. goals statutes: demarcating permissible and impermissible delegations
A timeline of legislative control
- See also: Nondelegation doctrine: A timeline
This section contains a timeline of significant events related to legislative control of the administrative state. For a full timeline related to legislative control, click here.
- 1825
Supreme Court examines congressional delegation: The United States Supreme Court ruled in Wayman v. Southard that Congress' delegation of authority to establish federal court procedures did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The case helped establish Congress’ ability to delegate non-legislative powers to federal entities.[7]
- 1892
Supreme Court affirms limits on delegating legislative power: In Field v. Clark, Marshall Field & Company challenged the Tariff Act of 1890, arguing it unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the president. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress cannot delegate legislative power but ruled the act constitutional, determining that it only granted discretionary authority to the president in executing the law.[8]
- 1928
Supreme Court establishes intelligible principle test: In J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a congressional delegation of authority, establishing the intelligible principle test. Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote that Congress must provide an intelligible principle to guide delegated authority, a standard the court continues to reference.[9]
- 1935
Supreme Court strikes down delegation on nondelegation grounds: The Supreme Court invalidated legislation in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan for violating the nondelegation doctrine. As of January 2020, these remain the only cases where the court has struck down a statute on nondelegation grounds.[10]
This page contains briefs on scholarly works related to legislative control of administrative agencies covered on Ballotpedia. For a list of scholarly work related to legislative control, click here.
Explore more pillars
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Executive control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Judicial control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Public control
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Ballotpedia Legislation, "Search results for enacted/adopted administrative state bills (2024–2025 sessions)", accessed June 2, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Delegation," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Legislative review of agency actions," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Legislative review of executive actions," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: REINS Act," accessed on March 13, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Sunset review," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "The History of the Doctrine of Nondelegability," accessed November 27, 2018
- ↑ FindLaw, Field v. Clark, accessed December 12, 2017
- ↑ Oyez, "J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Company v. United States," accessed October 30, 2017Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution, 50th Anniversary Edition, 2004
- ↑ Virginia Law Review, "Delegation and Original Meaning," October 27, 2001Slate, "The Supreme Court May Revive a Legal Theory Last Used to Strike Down New Deal Laws," March 5, 2018
- ↑ FindLaw, Mistretta v. United States, accessed November 25, 2017
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "INS v. Chadha," accessed October 23, 2017
