What is the Non-Delegation Doctrine, and how has it limited congressional delegation to administrative agencies?

• A. It allows Congress to delegate its powers freely without limits.
• B. It holds that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers too freely; in practice courts have allowed broad delegation with limits.
• C. It strengthens executive control over agencies.
• D. It requires all delegation to go through referenda.

Answer: (B)

The Non-Delegation Doctrine is a constitutional idea that Congress cannot hand over its lawmaking power to administrative agencies without providing some actual guiding standards. In other words, Congress can delegate authority to agencies, but it must supply an intelligible principle or framework that directs how that authority is to be exercised.

Historically, the Supreme Court has used this idea as a limit on delegation, striking down delegations that lacked any guiding rule. Over time, however, the Court has accepted broad delegations so long as there is an intelligible principle to guide the agency’s actions. This means Congress can grant wide latitude to agencies, but it must tether that power with standards, criteria, or principles that judicial review can enforce. The result is a balancing act: the doctrine prevents completely unfettered delegation, while allowing substantial delegation as long as Congress provides direction and oversight.

For context, cases in the New Deal era set the template with the intelligible-principle requirement, and later decisions showed that even expansive regulatory schemes can pass muster if they include workable standards. Modern practice reflects that tension: the Non-Delegation Doctrine exists as a constitutional check, but it rarely blocks broad delegations when Congress lays out guiding rules and accountability mechanisms.