Wayman v. Southard
Reference: 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1
Term: 1825
Important Dates
Decided: February 12, 1825
Outcome
Questions certified to the United States Court for the Seventh Circuit and District of Kentucky
Concurring
None
Dissenting
None

Wayman v. Southard is a case decided on February 12, 1825, by theUnited States Supreme Court that concerned the ability of state legislatures to set rules and procedures in federal courts within their states. The Kentucky state legislature attempted to bring the procedures governingwrits of execution in federal courts in line with those in Kentucky state courts. The United States Court for the Seventh Circuit and District of Kentucky sent the question to the Supreme Court for certification. Chief JusticeJohn Marshall authored the opinion, in which he argued that federal courts were not subject to the statutes of state legislatures. Furthermore, Congress' delegation of the power to create procedures for federal courts to those courts themselves did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.^[1]

In brief:The Kentucky state legislature attempted to set the procedures for trials involvingwrits of execution held in federal courts within the state. The circuit court sent the matter to the Supreme Court for certification. Chief JusticeJohn Marshall argued in the certification that the state legislature could not set procedures for federal courts. That power was delegated to Congress, who had delegated it to the federal courts themselves as an implied power.

Why it matters:The case established the right of federal courts to set their own procedures. It was also one of the seminal cases in the development of thenondelegation doctrine, so some of its arguments appeared in later cases such asPanama Refining Co. v. Ryan.

Background

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

The Judiciary Act of 1802 allowed circuit courts to send legal questions to the Supreme Court for certification if the circuit judges could not resolve a disagreement. This law and the Certificate of Division procedure were phased out and replaced by the end of the 19th century, but they were still in force in 1825. The ruling inWayman v. Southard is a certificate authored by Chief JusticeJohn Marshall.^[2]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the federal court system, aside from the Supreme Court, which had been created by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The act also gave federal courts the power to issuewrits of execution.^[3]

The Process Act of 1792 had outlined many of the procedures for federal courts, but had not provided them for cases involving writs of execution.^[4] The act also addressed some of the gaps and problems associated with the earlier Process Act of 1789.^[5]

Oral argument

No oral arguments were held for this case, as the opinion was only a Certified Question.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature of Kentucky could not set procedures for Kentucky's federal courts. According to the opinion, federal courts had the implied power to set their own procedures as part of their power to administer justice, which had been constitutionally delegated to them by Congress.

Opinions

Federalism
•Key terms •Court cases •Major arguments •State responses to federal mandates •Federalism by the numbers •Index of articles about federalism

Opinion of the court

Article 1, Section 8 of theU.S. Constitution states:

Writing for the court, Chief JusticeJohn Marshall argued that the necessary and proper clause gives Congress implied powers. Since Congress had delegated to federal courts the power to administer justice, it had also delegated the implied power to set the necessary procedures to accomplish that goal.

In addition to the constitutional basis for this power, Marshall pointed to later laws passed by Congress. Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal courts the right to issue writs of execution.^[3]

Though the defendants had pointed to other sections, such as Sections 17 & 34, for specific procedures, Marshall dismissed these. Since neither the Constitution nor the relevant laws had provided explicit procedures for the federal courts in these matters, but both had given them the power to enforce justice, Marshall held that they must have implicitly included the power to set their own procedures.

State legislatures, furthermore, were incapable of receiving delegated power from Congress, leaving the federal courts themselves as the only logical choice.

Marshall concluded the opinion by rejecting the arguments of the Kentucky state legislature and reiterating the independence of the federal courts.

Concurring opinions

There were no concurring opinions.

Dissenting opinions

There were not dissenting opinions.

Impact

Wayman v. Southard was one of the first cases to explore the limits of the delegation of congressional power. Marshall's opinion solidified the right of Congress to delegate power to other federal entities.

He made a distinction between the essential legislative functions of Congress, which it should regulate itself, and the subordinate rules and procedures which he felt could be more practically established by other entities.

Chief JusticeCharles E. Hughes used language from the preceding quote in the decision inPanama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935). Hughes incorporated Marshall's reasoning into his argument that Congress could not directly handle all of the responsibilities facing a modern state, which made its ability to delegate power essential to its ability to function.

Marshall made sure to emphasize that there were limits to Congress' ability to delegate its legislative power.

He later reiterated these concerns.

Chief Justice Hughes expressed similar concerns in hisPanama decision, since theseparation of powers was one of the foundational parts of the constitutional system. These concerns have fueled the development of thenondelegation doctrine, a body of jurisprudence that explores the procedures and limits governing the delegation of congressional power.

See also

• Gibbons v. Ogden
• Field v. Clark
• Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
• Whitman v. American Trucking Associations
• Nondelegation doctrine
• Separation of powers
• Rulemaking
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court

External links

• Full Text of the Case via Justia
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic

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