In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court chose to refrain from further restricting the authority of federal agencies, a stance that comes in the wake of last year’s notable step of overturning the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine had directed courts for four decades to show deference to agency interpretations of the statutes they enforce. However, on this occasion, by a 6-3 vote, the Court declined to revive the nondelegation doctrine, therefore allowing the continuance of a federal program designed to subsidize communications services in underserved areas.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court’s majority, upheld that Congress had adequately limited the discretion bestowed upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Kagan argued that Congress provided an “intelligible principle” guiding the FCC’s operations, thus creating ascertainable and meaningful guideposts for executing its responsibilities regarding the Universal Service Fund. Importantly, she noted that Congress imposed specific criteria to enhance education, public safety, and public health, making it clear which communities and services the program should target.
In his concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh discussed the “intelligible principle” standard, leaving open the possibility of a different stance in instances involving autonomous agencies potentially overstepping congressional boundaries. Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, criticized the decision, highlighting constitutional concerns with Congress empowering the FCC to determine rate-setting and collection activities, effectively permitting an executive agency to wield what he regarded as legislative powers.
Gorsuch argued that revenue collection through the Universal Service Fund constitutes a tax, traditionally a legislative prerogative. He suggested the current statute equates more to a “blank check” rather than a defined fiscal constraint. Furthermore, Gorsuch questioned the adequacy of the intelligible principle test itself, advocating for the Supreme Court to delve deeper into historically grounded methods and establish more definitive guidelines in evaluating whether Congress has illegitimately delegated legislative power.
More information on the decision can be found on SCOTUSblog.