E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The Nondelegation Doctrine -- Correcting a Common Error
Mark Tushnet
I just read yet another article asserting that the Supreme Court invoked the nondelegation doctrine to hold a federal statute unconstitutional only twice, in Panama Refining v. Ryan and Schechter Poultry. (Cass Sunstein's formulation, that the doctrine had one -- and only one -- good year, 1935, is a clever version of the assertion.)
It's not true. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., decided in 1936, held the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act unconstitutional on several grounds, one of which was the nondelegation doctrine.
Here's the language: "That subdivision delegates the power to fix maximum hours of labor to a part of the producers and the miners.... The power conferred upon the majority is, in
effect, the power to regulate the affairs of an unwilling minority.
This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form.... The delegation is so clearly arbitrary, and so
clearly a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to
decisions of this court which foreclose the question. Schechter...."