Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute | |
---|---|
Holding | |
The Secretary applied the act inappropriately. In order to comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Stevens, joined by Burger, Stewart; Powell (parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-C, III-E) |
Concurrence | Powell |
Concurrence | Rehnquist |
Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, White, Blackmun |
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute (also known as the Benzene Case), 448 U.S. 607 (1980), was a case decided by the
Perhaps more important than the specific holding of the case, the Court noted in dicta that if the government's interpretation of the authorizing statute had been correct, it might violate the nondelegation doctrine. This line of reasoning may represent the "high-water mark" of recent attempts to revive the doctrine.
Background
The
Opinion of the Court
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzene when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.
In its reasoning, the Court noted it would be unreasonable to Congress intended to give the Secretary “unprecedented power over American industry.” Such a delegation of power would likely be unconstitutional. The Court also cited the legislative history of the act, which suggested that Congress meant to address major workplace hazards, not hazards with low statistical likelihoods.
Concurring opinion
In a famous concurrence,
Subsequent developments
Most scholars[who?] have said that the interpretation of the statute ignored a foundational principle of statutory interpretation. Generally, specific language governs general language. In this case, the court read the more general provision of Section 3(8) as governing the specific process specified in Section 6(b)(5).
The case also marks the current state of affairs for the non-delegation doctrine. When the court is faced with a provision that appears to be an impermissible delegation of the authority, it will use tools of statutory interpretation to try to narrow the delegation of power.
References
External links
- Text of Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress