Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Agency control
•Court cases •Major arguments •Reform proposals •Scholarly work •Timeline
More pillars
•Judicial control •Executive control •Legislative control • Public control
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to accessBallotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

Agency dynamics is one of five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Agency dynamics is a term used to refer to the structure and function of administrative agencies. While the majority of agencies are housed under the executive branch, others are established asindependent federal agencies or are housed under the legislative or judicial branches. These structural variations impact agency oversight as well as agency interactions across branches. This pillar also involves understanding the nuts and bolts of agency functions, includingrulemaking andadjudication proceedings.

This page features a timeline of selected events related toagency dynamics in the context of the administrative state.

Timeline

The timeline below identifies a selection of key events and court cases that have shaped agency dynamics in the context of the administrative state:

• 1887: Congress establishes first independent agency

Congress established the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as the nation's firstindependent federal agency—a type of agency that operates with some degree of autonomy from the executive branch. Independent federal agencies are generally headed by a commission or board made up of five to seven members. A seven-member commission headed the ICC, each of whom was appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

• 1932: U.S. Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of agency adjudication

InCrowell v. Benson, the U.S. Supreme Court helped define the relationship between agencies and federal courts prior to theAdministrative Procedure Act. The court upheld the constitutionality of agencyadjudication.

• 1935: U.S. Supreme Court describes independent federal agencies as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial entities

InHumphrey's Executor v. United States, the court describedindependent federal agencies as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial entities and affirmed that their multi-member commissions have protections against removal by the president.

• 1946: Administrative Procedure Act establishes uniform rulemaking and adjudication procedures

Congress passed theAdministrative Procedure Act (APA), which established uniform procedures for federal agency rulemaking and adjudication. The APA stipulated both formal and informal procedures for rulemaking and adjudication.

• 1973: U.S. Supreme Court narrows applications of formal rulemaking

InUnited States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that agencies are only required to use formal rulemaking procedures when a statute calls for a hearing "on the record." The ruling contributed to the subsequent increase in agency use of informal procedures.

• 1978: U.S. Supreme Court limits additional procedural requirements for agencies

InVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts cannot impose additional procedural requirements on agencies and cannot invalidate agency actions simply because they do not like the final result.

• 2000: U.S. Supreme Court prohibits use of guidance to make regulatory changes

InAppalachian Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the removal of a guidance document issued by the Environmental Protection Agency because the document instituted a regulatory change without following the required rulemaking procedures.

• 2020: U.S. Supreme Court limits removal protections for single heads of independent federal agencies

InSeila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restrictions on the president's ability to remove single heads ofindependent federal agencies—as opposed to multi-member commissions—violated separation of powers principles by limiting executive control of such agencies.

See also

• Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency control
• United States Supreme Court
• Administrative state

Footnotes

v • e The Administrative State Main The Administrative State Project main page •Administrative State Project Index •Glossary of administrative state terms •Quotes about the administrative state •Administrative state •Rulemaking •Deference •Adjudication •Nondelegation doctrine •Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker Pillars Agency control •Executive control •Judicial control •Legislative control •Public control Reporting Changes to the Federal Register •Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules •Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act •Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016 Laws Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Cases Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States Terms Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large Bibliography "Administrative Law - The 20th Century Bequeaths an 'Illegitimate Exotic' in Full and Terrifying Flower" by Stephen P. Dresch (2000) "Confronting the Administrative Threat" by Philip Hamburger and Tony Mills (2017) "Constitutionalism after the New Deal" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987) Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787) "From Administrative State to Constitutional Government" by Joseph Postell (2012) "Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule (2002) "Rulemaking as Legislating" by Kathryn Watts (2015) "The Checks & Balances of the Regulatory State" by Paul R. Verkuil (2016) "The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano (2017) "The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis" by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007) "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" by Gary Lawson (1994) "The Study of Administration" by Woodrow Wilson (1887) "The Threat to Liberty" by Steven F. Hayward (2017) "Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law" by Richard A. Epstein (2008) Agencies Administrative Conference of the United States •United States Civil Service Commission •U.S. Government Accountability Office •U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs •U.S. Office of Management and Budget