531 U.S. 457 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.
1) Does Section 109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the EPA by failing to provide an intelligible principle to guide standard-setting for NAAQS? 2) May EPA consider implementation costs when setting NAAQS under Section 109(b)(1)?
Nondelegation: Congress may delegate authority to agencies so long as it lays down an intelligible principle to guide the exercise of that discretion (J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States). A delegation is unconstitutional only if Congress provides no meaningful standard by which to confine and direct the agency's action. Statutory interpretation: Where a statute directs the agency to set standards "requisite to protect the public health" with an "adequate margin of safety," EPA may not consider implementation costs in setting those standards unless the statute clearly authorizes such consideration.
1) Section 109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides an intelligible principle—standards "requisite to protect the public health" with an "adequate margin of safety"—and therefore is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2) EPA may not consider implementation costs when setting NAAQS under Section 109(b)(1). The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit on nondelegation and affirmed on the no-costs holding, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Whitman entrenches the modern, highly permissive intelligible principle test and demonstrates the Court's reluctance to revive robust nondelegation enforcement. It also establishes a critical statutory baseline in environmental law: NAAQS are health-based and cost-blind. For law students, Whitman is essential for three reasons: (1) It supplies the framework for evaluating nondelegation challenges and clarifies that an agency cannot cure an unconstitutional delegation by adopting its own limiting principle; (2) it exemplifies textual statutory interpretation that resists importing cost into a health-only mandate; and (3) it sets the stage for contemporary separation-of-powers debates, including the rise of the major questions doctrine as an alternative constraint on broad delegations, while Whitman remains the controlling articulation of nondelegation limits.